“Racist” is the favorite epithet of the left. Every white person (except leftists) is a racist by definition. As we are defined as racists based on our skin color, I am puzzled why we are called racists a second, third, and fourth time due to specific acts, such as favoring the enforcement of immigration laws. For example, President Donald Trump says he is going to enforce the immigration laws. For the left this is proof that Trump has put on the White Sheet and joined the KKK.

The left doesn’t say what a president is who does not enforce the laws on the books. But let’s look at this from the standpoint of the immigration laws themselves. In 1965 a bill passed by the “racist” Congress and signed by the “racist” President Lyndon Johnson completely changed the racial composition of US legal immigration.

In 1960 75% of US legal immigration was European, 5% was Asian, and 19% was from Americas (Mexico, Central and South America and Caribbean Islands).

The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act is a very strange law for racists to have enacted. Would racists pass a law, which has been on the books for 52 years, that fundamentally transformed the racial profile of the US by limiting white immigration, thereby ultimately consigning whites to minority status?

We could say the racists did not know what they were doing, or thought they were doing something else. However, the results have been obvious at least since 1980, and the law is still on the books.

We live during a time when there is an abundance of information, but facts seldom seem to inform opinions. The left delights in branding the Founding Fathers racists. The left was ecstatic when a 1998 DNA study concluded that Thomas Jefferson was one of eight possible ancestors of Eston Hemings, a descent of Jefferson’s slave Sally Hemings. The left seized on the implied sexual relationship as proof of Thomas Jefferson’s racism.

Let’s assume Jefferson had a sexual relationship with Sally Hemings. Does this prove he was a racist, or does it prove the opposite? Why is it a sign of racism for a white to have sex with a black? Does this prove that James Bond was a racist in the film “Die Another Day”? Do we really want to define racially mixed marriages as racist, as a white conquest over a black, Asian, or Hispanic?

The left has declared the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to be racist documents and, therefore, proof that the US was founded on racism. The left is particularly incensed that the Constitution counts enslaved blacks as three-fifths of a white person. Is the three-fifths clause a sign or racism, or was it a compromise to get an agreement on representation in the House of Representatives?

It was the latter. Indeed southerners, such as James Madison and Edmund Randolph, wanted blacks to be counted one to one with whites. It was northerners, such as Gouverneur Morris of Pennslyvania, who wanted blacks to count as fractions of a person. Why was this?

ORDER IT NOW

The issue was whether the North or the South would have majority representation in the House. The country already had different economic interests which came to conflict in the War of Southern Secession, which is mischaracterized as a civil war. (A civil war is when two sides fight for control of the government. The Confederacy was not fighting for control of the government in Washington. The South was fighting to secede from the union in order to avoid economic exploitation.)

The southern states were agricultural, and from early colonial times long before there was a United States or a Confederate States of America the absence of a work force meant that the agricultural labor force was imported as slaves. For the South slavery was an inherited institution, and from the South’s standpoint, if blacks were not included in the population on which US representation in Congress would be based, the South would have a minority voice in Congress and would not agree to the Constitution. The three-fifths clause was a compromise in order to move the Constitution toward agreement. It had nothing to do with racism. It was about achieving balance in regional representation in Congress. http://www.blackpast.org/aah/three-fifths-clause-united-states-constitution-1787

The Southern Secession resulted from divergent economic interests and was not fought over slavery. In former times when the left had real intellects, such as Charles A. Beard, a historian who stressed class conflict and a founder of the New School for Social Research and president of both the American Political Science Association and the American Historical Association, the left understood the divergence of interests between northern industry and southern agriculture. Those who think Lincoln invaded the South in order to free slaves need to read Thomas DiLorenzo’s books on Lincoln. DiLorenzo establishes beyond all doubt that Lincoln invaded the Confederacy in order to preserve the Union, that is, the American Empire, which has continued its growth into the 21st century.

The preponderance of war correspondence on both sides shows that few were fighting for or against slavery. According to the 1860 US census, slave owners were a small fraction of the Southern population.http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html The Confederate Army consisted almost entirely of non-slave owners who fought because they were invaded by Union armies.

The large agricultural interests (slave owners) had the money necessary for raising armies and were represented in the governing bodies. So naturally, their interests would be represented in the articles of secession.

As the war began with Lincoln’s invasion of the South, we should look to see Lincoln’s explanation for the war. The reason he gave repeatedly was to preserve the Union. Most historians understood this until “racism” became the explanation of all white history and institutions.

ORDER IT NOW

As for Thomas Jefferson, he was opposed to slavery, but he understood that the agricultural South was trapped in slavery. The “discovery” of the New World provided lands for exploitation but no labor force. The first slaves were white prisoners, but whites could not survive the malaria. Native Indians were tried, but they were not only as susceptible to malaria as whites but also used their native knowledge of the terrain to resist those who would enslave them. Blacks became the work force of choice because of genetic superiority in resistance to malaria. As Charles C. Mann reports in his book, 1493, “About 97 percent of the people in West and Central Africa are Duffy negative, and hence immune to vivax malaria.”

Thus, the real “racist” reason that blacks became the labor force was their survivability rate due to genetic superiority from their immunity to malaria, not white racists determined to oppress blacks for racial reasons.

The myth has taken hold that black slavery originated in white attitudes of racial superiority. In fact, as a large numbers of historians have documented, including Charles C. Mann and the socialist economic historian Karl Polanyi, brother of my Oxford University professor, the physical chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi, black slavery originated and flourished in Africa where tribes fought one another for slaves. The victorious would market their captives to Arabs and eventally as time passed to Europeans for transport to the new world to fill the vaccum of a missing labor force. (See for example, Karl Polanyi, Dahomey and the Slave Trade.)

It is a mystery how the myth of Thomas Jefferson’s alleged racism and love for slavery survives his drafts of the Declaration of Independence. One of Jefferson’s drafts that was abandoned in compromise over the document includes this in Jefferson’s list of King George’s offenses:

“he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.” http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html

Jefferson’s attack on King George sounds like the left’s racist attack on Jefferson.

ORDER IT NOW

It is amazing how proud some Americans are of their ignorance and how quick they are to hate based on their ignorance. In America the level of public discourse is so far below the gutter level that a person who ventures forth to tell the truth can expect to be met with violent hatred and every epithet in the book. Criticize ever so slightly the Israeli government’s theft of Palestine, and the Israel Lobby will immediately brand you an “anti-semite,” that is, a hater of Jews who wants to send them to the gas chamber. If you don’t denounce whites, especially Southern whites, as racists, you are not only a racist but also a member of the KKK who wants to lynch blacks.

Yes, I know. It works also in the other direction. If you don’t hate the left, you are one of them. Because I criticized the George W. Bush regime for its war crimes, conservatives branded me a “pinko-liberal-commie” and ceased to publish my columns.

Hardly anyone, even southerners, understands that racism in the South originated in the horrors that were inflicted on the South during the Reconstruction era that followed the military defeat of the Confederacy. The North inflicted blacks on southerners in ways that harmed prospects for relations between the races and gave rise to the KKK as a resistance movement. As Reconstruction faded, so did the KKK. It was later revived as a shadow of its former self by poor whites who were ambitious for personal power.

The question remains: How can President Trump or anyone unite a country in which historical understanding is buried in myths, lies, and the teaching of hate?

Try to imagine the expressions of hatred and the denunciations that this factual article will bring to me.

If we care about humanity and the creatures on Earth, our task is to find and to speak the truth. That is what I endeavor to do.

When the left abandoned Marxism and the working class, the left died. It has no doctrine to sustain itself, just hatreds based on historical ignorance and misunderstanding of the limits within which life is lived. Humans are not superheros or magicians who can reconstruct humanity by waving a wand or smashing evil. Everyone lives within limitations, and the many submit more than do the few.

It is the few who fight against the limits to whom we owe the defense of our humanity.

Racist? YOU BETCHA..... Western civilization is at stake. The mean IQ in the west is plummeting while we dither over genetics vs environment.

The human genome project is closer and closer to the unhappy truth. All those vaccines and penicillin to Africa and Asia... did nothing but improve the chances that Western Civilization will be swamped by the least of us. Thank you Christians. I personally am out of cheeks to proffer.

Environmental factors can destroy a child. Environment cannot raise their IQ but for a pittance. AND the saddest, and most disturbing evidence is that those blacks and browns who escape the mean... see their progeny revert to the mean in their lifetimes.

And we insured their fertility rates would surpass our own. Let's here it for Catholic Charities.!!

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

Hmm, such a stupid, and ignorant comment..FakeJazzmanBut wait!It says......he has been a conformist, sporting a label of 'intelligence 'Some sticker or t shirt he got from Mensa. This is what we are to use as a basis for understanding he is a is a Suuupeeeerrrr GeeeniuuussssWell, or at least, by his own personal declaration.So, he MUST be a regular genius!He told us so.......and he is SO SMART!What appears as ignorance....is his level of IQ.In case you could not discern any intellect from his statements....He has educated us with his declaration of Mensa membership!A regular Scarecrow, with a paper brain......off to see the Wizard on the Yello brick road.

I don't believe author was defending Marxism so much as he was stating that at least once the left believed in something. Now the left is merely anti everything that the right puts forth. Oh and screwing Americans.

The good news is that leftism is sufficiently outgunned by conservatism that it may be allowed to die a natural death.

The left’s sporadic manifestations of violence need to be punished more harshly though. Charging the vandals in Trump’s inauguration with felony rioting charges–they are looking at 10 years in prison–is a great start (emphasis on start).

Under our current culture, you are a racist if you even acknowledge that different races do exist on a biological level. Even though this is absurdly true (23andme, anyone), this simple acknowledgement is enough to get you fired.

Therefore, I suppose that I’m something a super racists because I believe:

1. There are races
2. The various races have different average abilities
3. Those averages matter

Of course, my beliefs would be consider quite banal for 99% of history, but today are quite shocking and evil.

Oh, I almost forgot, I also believe that races are generally happier when living among themselves. Naturally, this belief is just one step from gas chambers, right.

Therefore, I suppose that I’m something a super racists because I believe:

1. There are races2. The various races have different average abilities3. Those averages matter

4. The various races have different cultural preferences and lifestyle norms.

And you, like I, are racist for noting that being smart is better than being stupid, having a low time preference is better than having a high time preference, raising kids with self-control is better than raising them without self-control and that in all likelihood we share a preference for living among people who LIKE TO LIVE THE SAME WAY WE DO.

I don't like loud music after 9 PM. I don't like raucous parties on weekends. I do like to keep my property neat and don't appreciate those who let their homes visibly degrade.

Why on EARTH would someone think I should be forced to live with those who do the opposite of what I prefer, and then heap insults and humiliation on me for objecting to their coercion?

I also believe that races are generally happier when living among themselves.

When I was in the service, I happened to serve with mostly whites. I saw the Marines with lots of Hispanics and blacks, the Army with equal mixed, while the AF is mostly white for some unexplained reason. Also the AF is more tech oriented, while the Marines are mostly ground fighters, and the Army as well. The Navy I don't know much about. Well, we did get along so good, and I enjoyed the company of my best friend from Arkansas, and the several airmen from Ohio, which some how over represents the AF, as well as the deep south. The problem is that in the civilian world people hardly communicate with the believe that we cannot be friends. Of course we can, I saw it in the AF, we were friends with all services while deployed, race was secondary, especially when riding a HUMMER with other three people, one black, other hispanic, and two white. We enjoy each other in the deserts of Arabia, etc. The US population is so focused on race that, its hard to remove that from the daily thinking. I remember chatting over ancestry, and here we go. My parents came from Ireland, and or I am Irish, with German, and 1/4 Indian. or English with french and polak, etc. Some I am Mexican with German, and Italian, Etc. The old tribes of America; Tribal Europe met, and created the American people, with pieces from natives, and Mexicans, who were already in the land when the European tribes(English, Irish, Germans, Polacks, French, etc) arrived.

[H]e declared that the spread of Communist ideas would “defeat our intelligence, conquer our sentiments,” an insidious process with no obvious remedy. In contrast, any attempt to realize communism could easily be cut short by force of arms: “practical attempts [to introduce communism], even attempts en masse, can be answered with cannons.” As Sperber writes, “The man who would write the Communist Manifesto just five years later was advocating the use of the army to suppress a communist workers’ uprising!”

Continuing with my commentary about the Left*, it is notable that our liberals, presstitutes and Marx whom they supposedly abandoned, … as well as Camille Desmoulins who initiated the French revolution, and countless other firebrands, are and were insular scribblers who got their livelihoods from wealthy and super-wealthy individuals.

Look wise guy, I have read his works ( in German) , " Das Kapital", "Manifest" etc., probably before you were born, and simply because you are yourself a communist, does not indicate that someone else, who does not agree with his concepts, does not understand them.

Okay this is the third try to get this post through, as for some mysterious reason the admin simply does not want this information to become public :

I myself, have seen and witnessed the state of applied Marxism with my own two eyes, having visited several east-block contries long before the fall of the Berlin wall, and the morgue-like cities and morbid dead eyes of the downtrodden, oppressed peoples will remain with me forever.

I am however fully aware of the mind-set of each new generation of communists and that being:
They, the Russians, Chinese, Cubans, etc, they were the wrong ones and they did not really understand Karl Marx, and they did not really want to create a true workers paradise, however "We" the new generation of communists, we are the "Right" ones, and we will get it "Right"this time, and it goes on and on, over and over Venezuela being the latest example of this lunatic mania.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

It’s rather absurd to defend Jefferson by quoting one of his laughable charges against George III. Jefferson was an Alinskyite; he believed political arguments should be personalised. He was also an advertising man; he believed in lying to sell his goods.

More important, surely, is that he owned slaves, traded slaves, shagged a slave, and owned as slaves the children they had together. That’s what casts light on him rather than bothering with the charge of “racist”, which has been largely emptied of meaning.

If Jefferson weren’t part of the American foundation myths, he’d be dismissed as just another hypocritical politician, occasionally posing as an emancipationist in public but clinging to his slaves in private.

Jefferson, his allies, and their heirs were the real liberals (Hamilton who was the arch-conservative), but to the new left, being “racist” nullifies their liberalism and populism. However, Hamilton was such a brilliant politician and schemer that I think he would admire the modern leftist ploy of using identity politics to distract from oligarchic plundering.

They've already invented the new terms "racialists", "race realists", or even "HBDers", whatever you like. In principle, we even do not need such terms as everybody anyway have always been race realists (even, or rather especially, the leftists), this is as old as humanity, people in the old days just did not use sophisticated words such as "race", or "genes", or "phenotype", they usually spoke about "blood", "kin", "family", "tribe", "clan", or whatever such basic concepts that everybody knew and understood.

National Socialism only became Nazism when it merged with Zionism, thus NaZism.

"Early in 1935, a passenger ship bound for Haifa in Palestine left the German port of Bremerhaven. Its stern bore the Hebrew letters for its name, "Tel Aviv," while a swastika banner fluttered from the mast. And although the ship was Zionist-owned, its captain was a National Socialist Party member...The wide-ranging collaboration between Zionism and Hitler's Third Reich."

On this basis of their similar ideologies about ethnicity and nationhood, National Socialists and Zionists worked together for what each group believed was in its own national interest. As a result, the Hitler government vigorously supported Zionism and Jewish emigration to Palestine from 1933 until 1940-1941, when the Second World War prevented extensive collaboration.

You know why. Because it's convenient to lump normal, everyday, rational racism in with gas-chamber racism. Then you don't have to bother arguing with the former if you don't feel like it, and people whose arguments rely on pretending humans are interchangeable don't often feel like it.

Jefferson, his allies, and their heirs were the real liberals (Hamilton who was the arch-conservative), but to the new left, being "racist" nullifies their liberalism and populism. However, Hamilton was such a brilliant politician and schemer that I think he would admire the modern leftist ploy of using identity politics to distract from oligarchic plundering.

Very well said. But referring to today’s Democrats as the new left is like referring to the guy who stole my car as the new owner.

Under our current culture, you are a racist if you even acknowledge that different races do exist on a biological level. Even though this is absurdly true (23andme, anyone), this simple acknowledgement is enough to get you fired.

Therefore, I suppose that I'm something a super racists because I believe:

1. There are races
2. The various races have different average abilities
3. Those averages matter

Of course, my beliefs would be consider quite banal for 99% of history, but today are quite shocking and evil.

Oh, I almost forgot, I also believe that races are generally happier when living among themselves. Naturally, this belief is just one step from gas chambers, right.

Look wise guy, I have read his works ( in German) , ” Das Kapital”, “Manifest” etc., probably before you were born, and simply because you are yourself a communist, does not indicate that someone else, who does not agree with his concepts, does not understand them.

Would you care to share any facts that might actually stateWhat you are trying to say?As in, specifics?Genius T Jazzman?Once again, you mainly inform us of your brillianceWithout any content by which to determine your level of intelligence ourselves.As usual.Try saying something intelligent,make your case with factsAnd perhaps it would no longer be necessary for you to inform the worldThat you should be listened toBased only on your memnership in a conformist club For people so insecure about their own intellect as to require validation.Mensa man.....your personality more than makes up for any intellect you may haveAlthough many here still await any evidence of your geniusas it has never been apparent by your words.I would not be surprised if you wear a fancy watch too, in order to make a staement about your financial success for all to see.

The fact you've read something and/or read it in the original language does not make your point in any way more plausible and it does not prove anything. A lot of people have sure read Marx, Lenin, etc., and for sure they may have an opinion different from yours. I'm not in any way Marxist and never been, but I myself read both Marx and Lenin, and I might have done the very same "I have read that, so do not argue with me" bravado, which I wouldn't, and I hope it does not make my opinion less important, if I read the former in a Russian translation, but I read the latter in the original, which most probably you couldn't and haven't, so your argument may be easily used against you that you have no clue about the classical left ideology, as you have not read the works of the second most important founder of that ideology.

You argument reminds me Muslims and Christians, who say they have read the whole Quran in Arabic or the Bible, hence they are right and their opponents are wrong, never mind that reading is not a miraculous gift, and people may have read the sources as well.

And your "older than you" argument is also pathetic. Being older does not make anybody right, quite the contrary older people are prone to brain degradation and mental illnesses, with a result that many of them are unbearably arrogant and ill-tempered and speak a lot of BS thinking they are smarter and "wiser" than the whole world.

As I have said before, a really smart person never advertises himself as being smart. His work shows what he is. The fact that you have to include your epithet in every post shows that you are fake. Your posts show your ignorance and arrogance. You must have stolen your "Mensa membership" in a poker game.

Hmm, such a stupid, and ignorant comment..FakeJazzman
But wait!
It says……he has been a conformist, sporting a label of ‘intelligence ‘
Some sticker or t shirt he got from Mensa.
This is what we are to use as a basis for understanding he is a is a Suuupeeeerrrr Geeeniuuussss
Well, or at least, by his own personal declaration.
So, he MUST be a regular genius!
He told us so…….and he is SO SMART!
What appears as ignorance….is his level of IQ.
In case you could not discern any intellect from his statements….
He has educated us with his declaration of Mensa membership!
A regular Scarecrow, with a paper brain……off to see the Wizard on the Yello brick road.

Look wise guy, I have read his works ( in German) , " Das Kapital", "Manifest" etc., probably before you were born, and simply because you are yourself a communist, does not indicate that someone else, who does not agree with his concepts, does not understand them.

Would you care to share any facts that might actually state
What you are trying to say?
As in, specifics?
Genius T Jazzman?
Once again, you mainly inform us of your brilliance
Without any content by which to determine your level of intelligence ourselves.
As usual.
Try saying something intelligent,make your case with facts
And perhaps it would no longer be necessary for you to inform the world
That you should be listened to
Based only on your memnership in a conformist club
For people so insecure about their own intellect as to require validation.
Mensa man…..your personality more than makes up for any intellect you may have
Although many here still await any evidence of your genius
as it has never been apparent by your words.
I would not be surprised if you wear a fancy watch too, in order to make a staement about your financial success for all to see.

" I would not be suprised if you wear a fancy watch too, in order to make a statement about your financial suuccess for all to see"

Well actually I now am sporting a brand name el-cheapo time-piece and that being a so-called "fossil", which does from a distance sort of resemble a Rolex divers ( I owned five various Rolex's, all of them sold or lost in poker games, and eleven Alfa Romeo's in succession , during my financial hayday back in the sixties and seventies) as for my current financial status : I have legally declared insolvency, and am just managing to eake my way through, doing gigs and teaching a bit, so much for my current non-existant "Financial success".

"For people so insecure about their intellect" :

Nope I am most definitely not "insecure" concerning my intellect, as my golden rule has always been : " Only discuss subjects of which you have a working knowledge otherwise leave things of which you have no clue alone". I do not have the slightest clue concerning chemistry or electronics, and therefore I will never be involved in a discussion thereof.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

I believe in “me and those like me” superiority, so in today’s parlance I’m a racist.

WTF do these people think? I live like I do BECAUSE I think it’s superior. If I didn’t think that, I’d live some other way. I married a girl who looks like “my group,” because I think women from “my group” are superior. No kidding! How could it be otherwise?

Do the anti-racist idiots think we should be choosing our cultural norms PERSONALLY or the persons who choose to date, marry and with whom to produce children by a blind lottery?

None of this ever made sense. It is almost perfectly aligned with The Emperor’s New Clothes, and people are finally waking up to notice how everyone’s shivering in their nudity.

Leftists insisted we give up the basic human right to deem one thing better than another thing, that we give up our basic human right to choose how to live and with whom to live. They should have been strangled in infancy.

I agree with you, everyone has racial prejudice sometimes. It is a remnant of tribalism when people did only live with people that looked like them. But, the definition of racism is thinking your 'race' is superior to others.

And hey, I have had a thought before that blue eyes look weak (though I have never discrimated towards women, I am not a beta). Are there any people with blue eyes in the NFL? I have also thought pale skin looks fragile because you can see your blood underneath which makes you look vulnerable.

But do I think believe these things? No. In my experience, intelligence and physical abilities can be chalked up to more early enviormemt and hard work than anything else. At least if you're over 5'9" and aren't born with a disability.

But, you types of people would not do good on the west coast. Because, your boss would be Indian, you'd have a Chinese woman as your lead engineer and people from Africa, Asia as well as normal white Americans would be on your team. Hope you can at least be respectful in person, and you are just releasing tension on the internet.

Under our current culture, you are a racist if you even acknowledge that different races do exist on a biological level. Even though this is absurdly true (23andme, anyone), this simple acknowledgement is enough to get you fired.

Therefore, I suppose that I'm something a super racists because I believe:

1. There are races
2. The various races have different average abilities
3. Those averages matter

Of course, my beliefs would be consider quite banal for 99% of history, but today are quite shocking and evil.

Oh, I almost forgot, I also believe that races are generally happier when living among themselves. Naturally, this belief is just one step from gas chambers, right.

Therefore, I suppose that I’m something a super racists because I believe:

1. There are races
2. The various races have different average abilities
3. Those averages matter

4. The various races have different cultural preferences and lifestyle norms.

And you, like I, are racist for noting that being smart is better than being stupid, having a low time preference is better than having a high time preference, raising kids with self-control is better than raising them without self-control and that in all likelihood we share a preference for living among people who LIKE TO LIVE THE SAME WAY WE DO.

I don’t like loud music after 9 PM. I don’t like raucous parties on weekends. I do like to keep my property neat and don’t appreciate those who let their homes visibly degrade.

Why on EARTH would someone think I should be forced to live with those who do the opposite of what I prefer, and then heap insults and humiliation on me for objecting to their coercion?

Jefferson may have been averse to slavery (even though he was a slave owner himself), but he was no believer in racial equality between white Europeans and African Negroes:

“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.”

Leftists dismiss sentiment like this as “white supremacy” but it was based on observation and reflection. If Jefferson and the founding fathers were alive to see contemporary America and the problems wrought by racial egalitarianism their racial convictions would probably be even stronger. And they’d probably want to reach for their guns as in 1776.

Thank you! Jefferson was indeed a segregationist. In addition to what you quoted, he also suggested that if we did not ship them back to Africa, we would have a genocidal race war.

"It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the State [instead of colonizing them]? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites, ten thousand recollections by the blacks of the injuries they have sustained, new provocations, the real distinctions which nature has made, and many other circumstances will divide us into parties and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race." -Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Va., 1782

We've still got a wolf by the ear, a dangerous situation.

But as it is, we have a wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Holmes, April 22, 1820

At the least, this gives lie to claims in the comment section that Jefferson was (*snort*) "an Alinskyite."

It's rather absurd to defend Jefferson by quoting one of his laughable charges against George III. Jefferson was an Alinskyite; he believed political arguments should be personalised. He was also an advertising man; he believed in lying to sell his goods.

More important, surely, is that he owned slaves, traded slaves, shagged a slave, and owned as slaves the children they had together. That's what casts light on him rather than bothering with the charge of "racist", which has been largely emptied of meaning.

If Jefferson weren't part of the American foundation myths, he'd be dismissed as just another hypocritical politician, occasionally posing as an emancipationist in public but clinging to his slaves in private.

Jefferson preached frugality but died in debt. He was a serial rapist and had ten-year old slaves whipped if he thought they were not working hard enough.

So, race-ism should mean rational race-ism. Stuff like Nazism should be called Radical Racism.

But almost everyone, even on the Right, use 'racism' to mean 'radical racism'.

Because 'racism' is used that way, there is no word for a factual, rational, and sensible belief in race and racial differences.

That is why the meaning of race-ism must be changed if we are to have an honest debate.

They’ve already invented the new terms “racialists”, “race realists”, or even “HBDers”, whatever you like. In principle, we even do not need such terms as everybody anyway have always been race realists (even, or rather especially, the leftists), this is as old as humanity, people in the old days just did not use sophisticated words such as “race”, or “genes”, or “phenotype”, they usually spoke about “blood”, “kin”, “family”, “tribe”, “clan”, or whatever such basic concepts that everybody knew and understood.

“Marxism” is nothing short of manifest insanity, Karl Marx was a deranged asshole, and anyone who does not grasp this should just leave politics to others who have genuine insight.

Thanks. I have been waiting for a statement from you that proves you are in fact an idiot.

Okay this is the third try to get this post through, as for some mysterious reason the admin simply does not want this information to become public :

I myself, have seen and witnessed the state of applied Marxism with my own two eyes, having visited several east-block contries long before the fall of the Berlin wall, and the morgue-like cities and morbid dead eyes of the downtrodden, oppressed peoples will remain with me forever.

I am however fully aware of the mind-set of each new generation of communists and that being:
They, the Russians, Chinese, Cubans, etc, they were the wrong ones and they did not really understand Karl Marx, and they did not really want to create a true workers paradise, however “We” the new generation of communists, we are the “Right” ones, and we will get it “Right”this time, and it goes on and on, over and over Venezuela being the latest example of this lunatic mania.

Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

Look wise guy, I have read his works ( in German) , " Das Kapital", "Manifest" etc., probably before you were born, and simply because you are yourself a communist, does not indicate that someone else, who does not agree with his concepts, does not understand them.

The fact you’ve read something and/or read it in the original language does not make your point in any way more plausible and it does not prove anything. A lot of people have sure read Marx, Lenin, etc., and for sure they may have an opinion different from yours. I’m not in any way Marxist and never been, but I myself read both Marx and Lenin, and I might have done the very same “I have read that, so do not argue with me” bravado, which I wouldn’t, and I hope it does not make my opinion less important, if I read the former in a Russian translation, but I read the latter in the original, which most probably you couldn’t and haven’t, so your argument may be easily used against you that you have no clue about the classical left ideology, as you have not read the works of the second most important founder of that ideology.

You argument reminds me Muslims and Christians, who say they have read the whole Quran in Arabic or the Bible, hence they are right and their opponents are wrong, never mind that reading is not a miraculous gift, and people may have read the sources as well.

And your “older than you” argument is also pathetic. Being older does not make anybody right, quite the contrary older people are prone to brain degradation and mental illnesses, with a result that many of them are unbearably arrogant and ill-tempered and speak a lot of BS thinking they are smarter and “wiser” than the whole world.

Would you care to share any facts that might actually stateWhat you are trying to say?As in, specifics?Genius T Jazzman?Once again, you mainly inform us of your brillianceWithout any content by which to determine your level of intelligence ourselves.As usual.Try saying something intelligent,make your case with factsAnd perhaps it would no longer be necessary for you to inform the worldThat you should be listened toBased only on your memnership in a conformist club For people so insecure about their own intellect as to require validation.Mensa man.....your personality more than makes up for any intellect you may haveAlthough many here still await any evidence of your geniusas it has never been apparent by your words.I would not be surprised if you wear a fancy watch too, in order to make a staement about your financial success for all to see.

” I would not be suprised if you wear a fancy watch too, in order to make a statement about your financial suuccess for all to see”

Well actually I now am sporting a brand name el-cheapo time-piece and that being a so-called “fossil”, which does from a distance sort of resemble a Rolex divers ( I owned five various Rolex’s, all of them sold or lost in poker games, and eleven Alfa Romeo’s in succession , during my financial hayday back in the sixties and seventies) as for my current financial status : I have legally declared insolvency, and am just managing to eake my way through, doing gigs and teaching a bit, so much for my current non-existant “Financial success”.

“For people so insecure about their intellect” :

Nope I am most definitely not “insecure” concerning my intellect, as my golden rule has always been : ” Only discuss subjects of which you have a working knowledge otherwise leave things of which you have no clue alone”. I do not have the slightest clue concerning chemistry or electronics, and therefore I will never be involved in a discussion thereof.

Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

Whitey ain't racist. If blacks want to see racism, they can go to Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Rwanda, or some other country in the Middle East or Africa to get a glimpse of how their brethren will treat them.

Whitey ain’t racist. If blacks want to see racism, they can go to Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Rwanda, or some other country in the Middle East or Africa to get a glimpse of how their brethren will treat them.

Look wise guy, I have read his works ( in German) , " Das Kapital", "Manifest" etc., probably before you were born, and simply because you are yourself a communist, does not indicate that someone else, who does not agree with his concepts, does not understand them.

As I have said before, a really smart person never advertises himself as being smart. His work shows what he is. The fact that you have to include your epithet in every post shows that you are fake. Your posts show your ignorance and arrogance. You must have stolen your “Mensa membership” in a poker game.

It is not only ideology of Americans being inseparable from ideas of racism. Racism is a means to diminish and dehumanise the exploited, the victims, the prey. Indians deprived of their land and very existence, then black slaves fall prey to the White Men. The Whites in the same time pretend to be Christians, caring for their brother humans. How to solve this riddle? Turn racist, claim they are no brothers, yet pagans/human sacrificers/non-human species, and finally, Untermenschen.

The same applies to the Old World, Western Europe. There would be no Industrial revolution without robbing the Indies. The magnificient architecture of London is built not from the wealth accumulated by exploiting steam power or Jenny’s machine, but from graves of millions Indians killed, from slave trade of EIC, and from Opium trade with China. Without spanish gold and silver there would be no Enlightenement. Without usury of Fuggers and Bardis – no Reformation and Renaissance, i.e. no Western heritage as we know it. In that way Hitlerism is not an aberration, but a legacy of Western thinking. They found no other races at hand, and simply claimed their neighbors untermenschen. (Compare with ‘love thy neighbor’).

It is not high IQ, manoralism, being blonde, heritage of Greek Democracy or Roman Order that makes the people part of the spiritual West. It is still Usury, and institutionalised exploitation, that means living on someone other’s expense. To get one Westerner prosper, he has to let some non-westerners be deprived, some starve, and some be killed. There is nothing Aryan or Indoeuropean here, but such things are all written in the Old Testament.

If you think Europe was built on ursury check out the 300 percent interest rates charged by all the informal money lenders in India. The Indian banks actually do only a small percentage of the money in the country , most is done by the illegal usurers.
China is now and always has been notorious for debt slavery and generations of families having to pay off debts incurred by grandparents.

What animal on earth doesn't live at the expense of another life form?

All do, some are just better at the game we call life: Gladiator War.

"We're chemical machines, that have been built over 4 billion years, and we've been tested in what can be called quite accurately a 'Gladiator War'; where the machines went into the battle and if you won your DNA replicated, and that's all it was was a war. "

I believe in "me and those like me" superiority, so in today's parlance I'm a racist.

WTF do these people think? I live like I do BECAUSE I think it's superior. If I didn't think that, I'd live some other way. I married a girl who looks like "my group," because I think women from "my group" are superior. No kidding! How could it be otherwise?

Do the anti-racist idiots think we should be choosing our cultural norms PERSONALLY or the persons who choose to date, marry and with whom to produce children by a blind lottery?

None of this ever made sense. It is almost perfectly aligned with The Emperor's New Clothes, and people are finally waking up to notice how everyone's shivering in their nudity.

Leftists insisted we give up the basic human right to deem one thing better than another thing, that we give up our basic human right to choose how to live and with whom to live. They should have been strangled in infancy.

I agree with you, everyone has racial prejudice sometimes. It is a remnant of tribalism when people did only live with people that looked like them. But, the definition of racism is thinking your ‘race’ is superior to others.

And hey, I have had a thought before that blue eyes look weak (though I have never discrimated towards women, I am not a beta). Are there any people with blue eyes in the NFL? I have also thought pale skin looks fragile because you can see your blood underneath which makes you look vulnerable.

But do I think believe these things? No. In my experience, intelligence and physical abilities can be chalked up to more early enviormemt and hard work than anything else. At least if you’re over 5’9″ and aren’t born with a disability.

But, you types of people would not do good on the west coast. Because, your boss would be Indian, you’d have a Chinese woman as your lead engineer and people from Africa, Asia as well as normal white Americans would be on your team. Hope you can at least be respectful in person, and you are just releasing tension on the internet.

Racism in, unfortunately, universal …. being a sub-category of simple selfishness. The astonishing reality today is that the dominant racism (Jewish racism) presents itself as “anti-racism”. The people that Christ decried as being “of Satan”, the Jewish elite that direct their (most brainwashed) flock, are in the process of changing the face of the entire western world in pursuit of the goal that they themselves, the Jewish collective, will be THE ONLY COHERENT AND UNIFIED GROUP SURVIVING AT THE END OF THE PROCESS.
“Anti-Racism” is racist supremacism at work.

It is not only ideology of Americans being inseparable from ideas of racism. Racism is a means to diminish and dehumanise the exploited, the victims, the prey. Indians deprived of their land and very existence, then black slaves fall prey to the White Men. The Whites in the same time pretend to be Christians, caring for their brother humans. How to solve this riddle? Turn racist, claim they are no brothers, yet pagans/human sacrificers/non-human species, and finally, Untermenschen.

The same applies to the Old World, Western Europe. There would be no Industrial revolution without robbing the Indies. The magnificient architecture of London is built not from the wealth accumulated by exploiting steam power or Jenny's machine, but from graves of millions Indians killed, from slave trade of EIC, and from Opium trade with China. Without spanish gold and silver there would be no Enlightenement. Without usury of Fuggers and Bardis - no Reformation and Renaissance, i.e. no Western heritage as we know it. In that way Hitlerism is not an aberration, but a legacy of Western thinking. They found no other races at hand, and simply claimed their neighbors untermenschen. (Compare with 'love thy neighbor').

It is not high IQ, manoralism, being blonde, heritage of Greek Democracy or Roman Order that makes the people part of the spiritual West. It is still Usury, and institutionalised exploitation, that means living on someone other's expense. To get one Westerner prosper, he has to let some non-westerners be deprived, some starve, and some be killed. There is nothing Aryan or Indoeuropean here, but such things are all written in the Old Testament.

If you think Europe was built on ursury check out the 300 percent interest rates charged by all the informal money lenders in India. The Indian banks actually do only a small percentage of the money in the country , most is done by the illegal usurers.
China is now and always has been notorious for debt slavery and generations of families having to pay off debts incurred by grandparents.

I do not imply Europe is built on usury ab origine. It was transformed this way, towards Post-Christian state, by and for the sake of usurers - who started wars etc. There are thinkers stating that modern terms like 'economic growth' and even 'progress' are mere derivatives of usurer's per cent. These per cents are not created by labor, so they have to be robbed from some other guy: usury = colonialism/war = racism.

Loan sharks exist everywhere, yet somewhere they are disease, and somewhere make the basis of the system. I doubt that 'mortgage' is Christian, Indoeuropean, or traditionally European, yet it is part of THE SYSTEM of the West.

If you think Europe was built on ursury check out the 300 percent interest rates charged by all the informal money lenders in India. The Indian banks actually do only a small percentage of the money in the country , most is done by the illegal usurers.
China is now and always has been notorious for debt slavery and generations of families having to pay off debts incurred by grandparents.

I do not imply Europe is built on usury ab origine. It was transformed this way, towards Post-Christian state, by and for the sake of usurers – who started wars etc. There are thinkers stating that modern terms like ‘economic growth’ and even ‘progress’ are mere derivatives of usurer’s per cent. These per cents are not created by labor, so they have to be robbed from some other guy: usury = colonialism/war = racism.

Loan sharks exist everywhere, yet somewhere they are disease, and somewhere make the basis of the system. I doubt that ‘mortgage’ is Christian, Indoeuropean, or traditionally European, yet it is part of THE SYSTEM of the West.

He was hyooman, after all, and all hyoomanz are assholes. Ignorant, irrational, biased and insane too. The worst of the lot, in fact, are those who deny the charges.

Anyway, jazz, did you really plow through “Das Kapital” auf Deutsch? Could you do me a favor and read an English translation and tell me if the German version is as goofy and muddled and unreadable as the English ones?

Ha Ha Ha : I lived five minutes by foot away from his last residence in Heidelberg, and I can relate to you a quite humorous incident regarding his insane ramblings :

I was in the "Musicology institute" of the university library years ago maybe 1992, and I stumbled across a treatise of his, Hegel's, on the Aesthetics of music, okay so I was, maybe for two hours, trying to make sense the basis premise of the writings, and getting nowhere, and I went into the admin office with the book and related to the group of admin folks present my dilema, and one of the guys, with a tweed jacket and smoking a pipe, ( before the nixing of smoking in public facilities) says : "Ich habe ein Doktor-Grad in Philosophie" : I have a PhD in Philosophy, and he take the book and begins to read the chapter which I had pointed out to him, and he reads, and he reads, and he reads, maybe for an hour, with me sitting there, and then he declares : "Ich habe keine Ahnung was er ( Hegel) ausdrücken will" : "I have no clue as to what he, Hegel, is trying to express here".So much for Hegel, as he was a BS artist such as the majority of the nobility-mentored philosophers, their writings being such tortured nonsense that the dukes and kings considers themselves to be not intelligent enough to grasp the meanings thereof, and therefore the teachings of these scholars, these "Intellektuellen " simply must be valid.

And regarding "Das Kapital" : If you want to lose the remnants of your mind just dive into it, otherwise leave it alone, as it is nothing but abject lunacy put to words, and Germans love such pseudo-intellectual self-flagulation.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

The passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act was a racist hate crime against The Historic Native Born White American Working Class Majority…and 9/11 Conspiracy theory nut Paul Craig Roberts supports this racist attack on the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.

He was hyooman, after all, and all hyoomanz are assholes. Ignorant, irrational, biased and insane too. The worst of the lot, in fact, are those who deny the charges.

Anyway, jazz, did you really plow through "Das Kapital" auf Deutsch? Could you do me a favor and read an English translation and tell me if the German version is as goofy and muddled and unreadable as the English ones?

Have you studied Hegel in the original?

“Have you studied Hegel in the original” .

Ha Ha Ha : I lived five minutes by foot away from his last residence in Heidelberg, and I can relate to you a quite humorous incident regarding his insane ramblings :

I was in the “Musicology institute” of the university library years ago maybe 1992, and I stumbled across a treatise of his, Hegel’s, on the Aesthetics of music, okay so I was, maybe for two hours, trying to make sense the basis premise of the writings, and getting nowhere, and I went into the admin office with the book and related to the group of admin folks present my dilema, and one of the guys, with a tweed jacket and smoking a pipe, ( before the nixing of smoking in public facilities) says : “Ich habe ein Doktor-Grad in Philosophie” : I have a PhD in Philosophy, and he take the book and begins to read the chapter which I had pointed out to him, and he reads, and he reads, and he reads, maybe for an hour, with me sitting there, and then he declares : “Ich habe keine Ahnung was er ( Hegel) ausdrücken will” : “I have no clue as to what he, Hegel, is trying to express here”.
So much for Hegel, as he was a BS artist such as the majority of the nobility-mentored philosophers, their writings being such tortured nonsense that the dukes and kings considers themselves to be not intelligent enough to grasp the meanings thereof, and therefore the teachings of these scholars, these “Intellektuellen ” simply must be valid.

And regarding “Das Kapital” : If you want to lose the remnants of your mind just dive into it, otherwise leave it alone, as it is nothing but abject lunacy put to words, and Germans love such pseudo-intellectual self-flagulation.

Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

And regarding “Das Kapital” : If you want to lose the remnants of your mind just dive into it, otherwise leave it alone, as it is nothing but abject lunacy put to words, and Germans love such pseudo-intellectual self-flagulation.

Too late. I tried reading that BS once a long time ago and I must say that though I've read some tedious stuff in my day, that is the ONLY book I never finished. What a load of trash. I've never even been tempted to have a second go at it.

So much for Hegel, as he was a BS artist such as the majority of the nobility-mentored philosophers, their writings being such tortured nonsense that the dukes and kings considers themselves to be not intelligent enough to grasp the meanings thereof, and therefore the teachings of these scholars, these “Intellektuellen ” simply must be valid.

That's pretty much the eval regarding "philosophers" since ancient times. Lucian of Samosata and Aristophanes, to name just two out of many, would entirely identify with that statement.

If Moses owed his similar reputation
to tradition and historical
inaccessibility, Marx is probably
indebted for his to the formidably
unreadable style of his magnum
opus, cluttered up as it is with
Hegelian metaphysics, wordy elaborations
of the ideas of the classical
economists, and long verbatim excerpts
from dry-as-dust reports of
factory inspectors. Indeed, one
wonders how many of his devotees
have really read him through from
cover to cover; for even a cursory
examination of his writings in the
light of demonstrable historical
facts will reveal dozens of mistakes,
some of which are of such a
fundamental character as completely
to knock out the underpinning
from the elaborate theoretical
edifice which he endeavored to
erect. Whether considered as a
long-term or as a short-term
prophet, Marx was as unreliable as
the ordinary Wall Street tipster.

he reads, and he reads, maybe for an hour, with me sitting there, and then he declares : “Ich habe keine Ahnung was er ( Hegel) ausdrücken will” : “I have no clue as to what he, Hegel, is trying to express here”. So much for Hegel, as he was a BS artist such as the majority of the nobility-mentored philosophers, their writings being such tortured nonsense that the dukes and kings considers themselves to be not intelligent enough to grasp the meanings thereof, and therefore the teachings of these scholars, these “Intellektuellen ” simply must be valid.“Ich habe keine Ahnung was er ( Hegel) ausdrücken will” He's being truthful about what is obvious. It's like the fable of Hans Andersen: Emperor with No Clothes On.I have to move you over a couple of notches on my imaginary Bell curve… that I keeps bangin' around in the BelfreyHe's being truthful about the obvious. That's the moral of the Emperor's New Clothes, in the Nut Shell!

Hegel needs some more work to me understand, but he is reputed to be at the nexus of quite a few of the modern thinkers, including Frued, others, with his Hegelian Dialectical Materialism, I first read of that in J.Edgar Hoover's book: ''Masters of Deception'', of all places, another current ''expert'' on Hegel is Zizek, on youtube, holy moly!

It is all pretty arcane difficult (to argue with/understand, etc.) but the main thing is the obvious, namely, if it can't be expressed in everyday language, don't buy it!

I will move you over a couple of notches now on my imaginary Bell Curve that I keep rollin' around me hade.

I don’t believe author was defending Marxism so much as he was stating that at least once the left believed in something. Now the left is merely anti everything that the right puts forth. Oh and screwing Americans.

Ha Ha Ha : I lived five minutes by foot away from his last residence in Heidelberg, and I can relate to you a quite humorous incident regarding his insane ramblings :

I was in the "Musicology institute" of the university library years ago maybe 1992, and I stumbled across a treatise of his, Hegel's, on the Aesthetics of music, okay so I was, maybe for two hours, trying to make sense the basis premise of the writings, and getting nowhere, and I went into the admin office with the book and related to the group of admin folks present my dilema, and one of the guys, with a tweed jacket and smoking a pipe, ( before the nixing of smoking in public facilities) says : "Ich habe ein Doktor-Grad in Philosophie" : I have a PhD in Philosophy, and he take the book and begins to read the chapter which I had pointed out to him, and he reads, and he reads, and he reads, maybe for an hour, with me sitting there, and then he declares : "Ich habe keine Ahnung was er ( Hegel) ausdrücken will" : "I have no clue as to what he, Hegel, is trying to express here".So much for Hegel, as he was a BS artist such as the majority of the nobility-mentored philosophers, their writings being such tortured nonsense that the dukes and kings considers themselves to be not intelligent enough to grasp the meanings thereof, and therefore the teachings of these scholars, these "Intellektuellen " simply must be valid.

And regarding "Das Kapital" : If you want to lose the remnants of your mind just dive into it, otherwise leave it alone, as it is nothing but abject lunacy put to words, and Germans love such pseudo-intellectual self-flagulation.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

And regarding “Das Kapital” : If you want to lose the remnants of your mind just dive into it, otherwise leave it alone, as it is nothing but abject lunacy put to words, and Germans love such pseudo-intellectual self-flagulation.

Too late. I tried reading that BS once a long time ago and I must say that though I’ve read some tedious stuff in my day, that is the ONLY book I never finished. What a load of trash. I’ve never even been tempted to have a second go at it.

So much for Hegel, as he was a BS artist such as the majority of the nobility-mentored philosophers, their writings being such tortured nonsense that the dukes and kings considers themselves to be not intelligent enough to grasp the meanings thereof, and therefore the teachings of these scholars, these “Intellektuellen ” simply must be valid.

That’s pretty much the eval regarding “philosophers” since ancient times. Lucian of Samosata and Aristophanes, to name just two out of many, would entirely identify with that statement.

If Moses owed his similar reputation
to tradition and historical
inaccessibility, Marx is probably
indebted for his to the formidably
unreadable style of his magnum
opus, cluttered up as it is with
Hegelian metaphysics, wordy elaborations
of the ideas of the classical
economists, and long verbatim excerpts
from dry-as-dust reports of
factory inspectors. Indeed, one
wonders how many of his devotees
have really read him through from
cover to cover; for even a cursory
examination of his writings in the
light of demonstrable historical
facts will reveal dozens of mistakes,
some of which are of such a
fundamental character as completely
to knock out the underpinning
from the elaborate theoretical
edifice which he endeavored to
erect. Whether considered as a
long-term or as a short-term
prophet, Marx was as unreliable as
the ordinary Wall Street tipster.

Jews kvetching about the US not taking in Jews-as-refugees during WWII would be like Japanese and Germans bitching that the US didn’t take in Japanese and Germans as refugees during the war. After all, tons of Germans and Japanese were being killed in the war.

The fact is Germans and Japanese were culpable because they were instrumental in triggering the war. And, this goes for Jews too. Jews had a huge role in the events that led to WWI and WWII. Jewish bankers played a significant role in WWI, and Jewish role in communism pushed many conservatives to the far right. Jewish communists(in cahoots with gentile communists) smashed innumerable churches and killed millions of Christian Slavs and Muslims in the USSR. Jewish communists dominated the dreaded Bela Kun regime in Hungary. And the failed communist putsch in Germany was dominated by Jews. Also, Jewish financial capitalists did much to undermine the economy of Europe and America. And Jewish perverts degraded culture and values in Germany and elsewhere. And if Americans grew wary of Jews in the first half of the 20th century, it had to do with lots of Jews dominating anarchism and communism in the US.

So, it is lowdown for Jews to act like perfect little victims like Anne Frank when, in fact, so many Jews back then were more like Sarah Silverman and Emma Goldman.

True, Jews who died in the Holocaust were victims, and many were innocent(though I suspect many communist Jews with blood on their hands were killed in the East). But this goes for German and Japanese victims too. Many of them had NO say in the wars and didn’t even support them. As such, they were innocent. But they were killed by Allied bombings just the same. All the babies that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no say in the war but they were vaporized too. And the US did nothing to spare or save the innocent ones from mass bloodshed(even acts of extermination as in carpet bombings and use of atomic weapons) during the war.

So, what happened to the Jews was unexceptional in this regard. It is true that a lot of innocent Jews did get killed, just like innocent Germans and Japanese got killed in the millions as the war turned crazy on all sides. And if the US didn’t take in Jewish refugees, it didn’t take in Japanese and Germans who were being massacred too(by the Allies). And the US didn’t take in any Ukrainian refugees of mass communist killings carried out by Lazar Kaganovich at the behest of Stalin. And the US didn’t take in Chinese refugees from WWII or during the bloody Mao era.

Anyway, just like a lot of Germans and a lot of Japanese were responsible for supporting regimes that ignited WWII, Jews as a people were also responsible for steering historical events from WWI to WWII that led to the rise of Hitler, who was an extreme reaction to the madness created by the threat of Bolshevisim, parasitic finance capitalism, and cultural degeneracy.
Even though, as with Germans and Japanese, we can speak of innocent Jewish individuals, Jews-as-a-people were one of the major guilty parties in the horrors that gripped Europe from WWI to WWII.

And if we fast-forward to the end of the Cold War, what did Jews do to Russia in the 90s? It was even worse than the robbery of Germany after WWI. And what did Jewish control of foreign policy do to the Middle East and North Africa? Some of the violence is on par with the horrors of WWII. The great irony is that Jews, who never tire of reminding us of the evils of the Germany(and Japan) in WWII, never seem to realize that they are the ones who are acting most like the New Nazis.

Today, Jews never look in the mirror, never reflect on their own history and misdeeds. They just pontificate about Emma Lazarus and Anne Frank and wallow in the moral narcissism of caring about ‘refugees’ when, in fact, it was Jewish-dominated policies that led to so much horrors all around the world that led to this massive refugee crisis.
And look at the state of our degenerate culture in movies and TV and music. Who were behind that? Just how did rap and Lena Dunham became the posterchild of ‘Western Values’? The state of current culture is even worse than in Weimar Germany. Massive degenerate homo parades are the mainstay of American Culture. We have women whose idea of political statement is wearing ‘pussy hats’. We have quasi-pornography promoted even to kids. Kids are told that there is nothing wrong with Nikki Minaj ‘twerking’.

The madness of Jewish Globalist pathology can be seen in Madeline Albright, the cold-blooded witch who said it was worth it to kill “500,000 Iraqi children” but now yammers about registering as a ‘Muslim’ in an act of solidarity.

Look at immigration patterns. Why do all these people try to move to white nations? They believe whites run better societies. So, they believe whites are superior.

It's the great paradox. Immigration is premised on the notion that Diversity is GOOD for white nations, but people of diversity flee from diversity to come to live in white nations. But as white nations turn more diverse, they are less desirable as immigration-destinations. If Sweden becomes majority black and Muslim, even blacks and Muslims wouldn't want to go there. What'd be the point? Blacks and Muslims want to emigrate away from blacks and Muslims.

Under our current culture, you are a racist if you even acknowledge that different races do exist on a biological level. Even though this is absurdly true (23andme, anyone), this simple acknowledgement is enough to get you fired.

Therefore, I suppose that I'm something a super racists because I believe:

1. There are races
2. The various races have different average abilities
3. Those averages matter

Of course, my beliefs would be consider quite banal for 99% of history, but today are quite shocking and evil.

Oh, I almost forgot, I also believe that races are generally happier when living among themselves. Naturally, this belief is just one step from gas chambers, right.

I also believe that races are generally happier when living among themselves.

When I was in the service, I happened to serve with mostly whites. I saw the Marines with lots of Hispanics and blacks, the Army with equal mixed, while the AF is mostly white for some unexplained reason. Also the AF is more tech oriented, while the Marines are mostly ground fighters, and the Army as well. The Navy I don’t know much about.
Well, we did get along so good, and I enjoyed the company of my best friend from Arkansas, and the several airmen from Ohio, which some how over represents the AF, as well as the deep south. The problem is that in the civilian world people hardly communicate with the believe that we cannot be friends. Of course we can, I saw it in the AF, we were friends with all services while deployed, race was secondary, especially when riding a HUMMER with other three people, one black, other hispanic, and two white. We enjoy each other in the deserts of Arabia, etc. The US population is so focused on race that, its hard to remove that from the daily thinking. I remember chatting over ancestry, and here we go. My parents came from Ireland, and or I am Irish, with German, and 1/4 Indian. or English with french and polak, etc. Some I am Mexican with German, and Italian, Etc. The old tribes of America; Tribal Europe met, and created the American people, with pieces from natives, and Mexicans, who were already in the land when the European tribes(English, Irish, Germans, Polacks, French, etc) arrived.

Today's all-volunteer military gets to be rather choosy about which blacks enter service; the integrated military does not have to tolerate the average black's behavior. Even then, you're glossing over the very real racial tensions within the military, even if they today do not rise to the level of the USMC's Agana Race Riot.

So, race-ism should mean rational race-ism. Stuff like Nazism should be called Radical Racism.

But almost everyone, even on the Right, use 'racism' to mean 'radical racism'.

Because 'racism' is used that way, there is no word for a factual, rational, and sensible belief in race and racial differences.

That is why the meaning of race-ism must be changed if we are to have an honest debate.

National Socialism only became Nazism when it merged with Zionism, thus NaZism.

“Early in 1935, a passenger ship bound for Haifa in Palestine left the German port of Bremerhaven. Its stern bore the Hebrew letters for its name, “Tel Aviv,” while a swastika banner fluttered from the mast. And although the ship was Zionist-owned, its captain was a National Socialist Party member…The wide-ranging collaboration between Zionism and Hitler’s Third Reich.”

On this basis of their similar ideologies about ethnicity and nationhood, National Socialists and Zionists worked together for what each group believed was in its own national interest. As a result, the Hitler government vigorously supported Zionism and Jewish emigration to Palestine from 1933 until 1940-1941, when the Second World War prevented extensive collaboration.

Ha Ha Ha : I lived five minutes by foot away from his last residence in Heidelberg, and I can relate to you a quite humorous incident regarding his insane ramblings :

I was in the "Musicology institute" of the university library years ago maybe 1992, and I stumbled across a treatise of his, Hegel's, on the Aesthetics of music, okay so I was, maybe for two hours, trying to make sense the basis premise of the writings, and getting nowhere, and I went into the admin office with the book and related to the group of admin folks present my dilema, and one of the guys, with a tweed jacket and smoking a pipe, ( before the nixing of smoking in public facilities) says : "Ich habe ein Doktor-Grad in Philosophie" : I have a PhD in Philosophy, and he take the book and begins to read the chapter which I had pointed out to him, and he reads, and he reads, and he reads, maybe for an hour, with me sitting there, and then he declares : "Ich habe keine Ahnung was er ( Hegel) ausdrücken will" : "I have no clue as to what he, Hegel, is trying to express here".So much for Hegel, as he was a BS artist such as the majority of the nobility-mentored philosophers, their writings being such tortured nonsense that the dukes and kings considers themselves to be not intelligent enough to grasp the meanings thereof, and therefore the teachings of these scholars, these "Intellektuellen " simply must be valid.

And regarding "Das Kapital" : If you want to lose the remnants of your mind just dive into it, otherwise leave it alone, as it is nothing but abject lunacy put to words, and Germans love such pseudo-intellectual self-flagulation.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

Good comment Jazzman,

he reads, and he reads, maybe for an hour, with me sitting there, and then he declares : “Ich habe keine Ahnung was er ( Hegel) ausdrücken will” : “I have no clue as to what he, Hegel, is trying to express here”. So much for Hegel, as he was a BS artist such as the majority of the nobility-mentored philosophers, their writings being such tortured nonsense that the dukes and kings considers themselves to be not intelligent enough to grasp the meanings thereof, and therefore the teachings of these scholars, these “Intellektuellen ” simply must be valid.
“Ich habe keine Ahnung was er ( Hegel) ausdrücken will”
He’s being truthful about what is obvious. It’s like the fable of Hans Andersen: Emperor with No Clothes On.
I have to move you over a couple of notches on my imaginary Bell curve… that I keeps bangin’ around in the Belfrey
He’s being truthful about the obvious. That’s the moral of the Emperor’s New Clothes, in the Nut Shell!

Hegel needs some more work to me understand, but he is reputed to be at the nexus of quite a few of the modern thinkers, including Frued, others, with his Hegelian Dialectical Materialism, I first read of that in J.Edgar Hoover’s book: ”Masters of Deception”, of all places, another current ”expert” on Hegel is Zizek, on youtube, holy moly!

It is all pretty arcane difficult (to argue with/understand, etc.) but the main thing is the obvious, namely, if it can’t be expressed in everyday language, don’t buy it!

I will move you over a couple of notches now on my imaginary Bell Curve that I keep rollin’ around me hade.

Hardly anyone, even southerners, understands that racism in the South originated in the horrors that were inflicted on the South during the Reconstruction era that followed the military defeat of the Confederacy.

The Southern Secession resulted from divergent economic interests and was not fought over slavery.

BS.

The slave owning aristocracy gave us the Civil War. Slavery was going to be eliminated at some point in the near future. The abolitionist writing was on the wall. If they did nothing, slavery would be abolished. If they went to war, there was a chance that they could win. It was the rational choice if you wanted to maintain your position as a slave owning aristocracy.

The Southern Secession resulted from divergent economic interests and was not fought over slavery.

BS.

The slave owning aristocracy gave us the Civil War. Slavery was going to be eliminated at some point in the near future. The abolitionist writing was on the wall. If they did nothing, slavery would be abolished. If they went to war, there was a chance that they could win. It was the rational choice if you wanted to maintain your position as a slave owning aristocracy.

It’s interesting how ‘anti-racism’ went from an egalitarian ideology to a supremacist ideology.

There was a time when the US was blatantly discriminatory against non-whites. There was Segregation for blacks and a long history of Indians getting the shaft. And even though Jews had it pretty good, they could still get beat up in school by ‘big dumb Polac*s’ and not be admitted to some country club with superior lemonade.

Back then, ‘anti-racism’ was indeed a movement to create a more equal society under the law where everyone, regardless of race/creed/color, would be accorded the same protections and rights.

But ‘anti-racism’ became like Christianity, a religion that got started by calling for justice for the poor but eventually became the Official Faith of kings and noblemen. As long as the elites invoked God and Jesus the Savior, their supreme power was justified over the toiling masses. Christianity became the symbolic justification for monarchic-aristocratic power. The noblemen were not a separate race from their subjects, but since membership was determined by blood, they were a caste, or a class-race, or clace(or rass). Anyway, the noblemen invoked God and Jesus to judge their ‘deplorable’ subjects.

Today, there is equality under the law for everyone in the US.
Sure, some people are more equal than others cuz those with more talent and money will always be more privileged. But the law is, more or less, the same for most Americans.
So, what is the real value of ‘anti-racism’? Its current function is essentially and paradoxically supremacist. It is used by the GLOB to maintain its supremacist status over the masses, especially the white majority. Given that the GLOB is disproportionately made up of Jews and their gentile collaborators, what it fears most is the assertiveness of the white majority. White majority no longer wants special favors or ‘racial supremacism’ over non-whites. But they do want something like proportional representation, which is sorely missing in the US. It isn’t much of an exaggeration to say that Jews, who are 2%, wield more power and influence than white gentiles who make up a much larger percentage of the population. In order for Jews to control and suppress the aspirations of the whites masses, they need a psychological mechanism, and that is cult of guilt that paralyzes and demoralizes and makes the afflicted hanker for redemption. Indeed, given the cult of White Guilt, white pride can ONLY BE earned by redemption, and that means ‘good whites’ dumping on ‘bad whites’. It’s no wonder that so many whites get their moral jollies by dumping on other whites. Look what happened to country girl Ashley Judd after her mind got worked over in Hollywood. So, ‘anti-racism’ is now a tool of tribal supremacism by the GLOB.

In the end, it’s not just about power. Sure, the Deep State controls levers of power at the deeper level of government, academia, media, industries, and etc. A web of collusion.

But there is also the Deep Agenda and Deep Narrative.
On the surface, ‘anti-racism’ seems like what it says it is: A struggle for equality and more just society. And who can really oppose that Narrative?
But the Deep Narrative is “Anti-racism is very useful in maintaining our supermacist tribal power.”
Deep State is about power, but power must serve something, some group, some ideology. And at the deeper level, there is little room for earnest naivete. It is about the cynical grasp of what power is and what it takes to control it. And for ‘my people’ or the for people who will hand out rewards if you serve them right.

Btw…

While I oppose mass immigration, let’s remember that Muslims are pawns in the game, at least in the US. In EU, they got more weight, and the politics is different there. Some parts of EU have serious Muslim problems.

In the US, it’s totally different.

Muslims in the US have been helpless to do anything about Zionism, the Occupation, the Gulf War, the sanctions on Iraq that killed 100,000s, the sanctions on Iran(though it has no nukes while Israel has 200 and gets 4 billion in aid), the Iraq War, Afghan War, destruction of Libya, the bloody mess in Gaza, and the horror in Syria.

Muslims have no say or power in the Politics of Refugees. They are pawns. The GLOB wages war on MENA and tries to mask its imperialism with ‘humanitarian’ outreach to Muslim refugees.

Even this Image of Arab woman in hijab, Muslims didn’t come up with it. Some shill of Obama who is a shill of the GLOB came up with it. Muslims are being used for symbolic value by both ‘right’ and ‘left’. The ‘right’ that is too chicken to touch issues of Jewish, Homo, and black power have found an easy target in the Mooslims. And the ‘left’ that can’t own up to its globo-imperialism now feign as compassionate defenders of Muslims(over here as it didn’t do anything to defend Muslims over there).
Muslims are a nutty people, but they don’t have power in the US. If they did, they would be steering US foreign policy to reflect their interests. Instead, they are helpless to stop the GLOB destruction of Middle East and North Africa and desperately seek refugee status.

Though Muslim terror is horrible stuff and I don’t condone it, I think some of the rage is understandable. See it this way.
Suppose the Muslim World is richer and more powerful than Europe. Suppose you’re a European whose nation have been utterly starved, bombed, and wrecked by a Muslim superpower and its vassals. Suppose Jews have colonized Austria and reduced its native population to Palestinian-like status. Suppose the Muslim superpower uses its might to favor Ausreal(Austria-Israel) and suppose superpower uses sanctions and bombs to destroy much of Europe.
BUT, to show its ‘humane’ face, the great Muslim superpower invites European refugees to settle in the Muslim world. Suppose you go there cuz things are so bad at home. But when you consider what this superpower did to Europe, would you not be angry? Would you not want to strike out at a nation that did so much damage to your homeland of Europe?

Now, much of the problems in the Muslim world are the fault of Muslims, but much of the recent horrors had to do with US intervention with key influence from Zionists.

I agree with No Invite, but no discussion of Invite makes sense without the bigger crime of Invade.

Look at immigration patterns. Why do all these people try to move to white nations? They believe whites run better societies. So, they believe whites are superior.

It’s the great paradox. Immigration is premised on the notion that Diversity is GOOD for white nations, but people of diversity flee from diversity to come to live in white nations. But as white nations turn more diverse, they are less desirable as immigration-destinations. If Sweden becomes majority black and Muslim, even blacks and Muslims wouldn’t want to go there. What’d be the point? Blacks and Muslims want to emigrate away from blacks and Muslims.

you really need to create a handle and stick with it. I can't tell if you are the same person or not :) your posts are very confusing. sometimes you make some actual sense sense with certain parts of your comments, other times you read like a lunatic. it is why I ignore your comments most of the time.

the reason why they want to immigrate to our country is because we are rich.

do you know why we are rich? this is the million dollar question. a hint, not because we are better at running our country.

more PCR silly posturing as a Good Guy and On the Right Side Of History.

Of course Whites are racialist, even those who claim the reverse. IF you are married to a same-race person, you are a racialist. It is genetic similarity that rules , with a couple exceptions to prove it. All races are racialist. That is why the word Race exists, despite the cry that There is no Race!

Human Nature….and only sophomores and elite scammers claim otherwise…making money means you must luv everybody or say you do. I am not now or have I ever been a racist!

I am a racialist. I once was not…proof: had a couple girlfriends of mixed race.

I was a foolish liberal, instructed by the usual intellectual boobs, family (communist), and The Times, and I enjoyed my high status as a Liberal with a Big Badge. I looked down on the deplorable dopes.

Now that the Truth, after first pissing me off, set me Free. I am delighted to be Free of Bad Ideas. And proud to be White: a privileged member of the White Race, the race that has invented Everything, from free speech to rocketships to the Moon.

Whites Are Privileged…by Nature, the global north, and the best all-round genes that money cannot buy. The inferior races hate us because we are the best. Resentment, envy, greed, jealousy of our personal good looks, our women especially. Too bad but that is just the way it is.

the word you are looking for is HAMILTON'S RULE.... We identify with and care for those who look and act like we do.

10000 years of hard wiring cannot be erased with enforced busing or affirmative action.

All that does is exacerbate the ill will between unlike species. Blacks find themselves in over their heads... and resent the standards for performance. Whites don't trust the skills of those who are advanced for reasons other than merit.

I, for one, would not allow Ben Carson to touch my head. I've heard him speak. He may have a higher IQ than street corner blacks... but he's scary to listen to.

“…Hardly anyone, even southerners, understands that racism in the South originated in the horrors that were inflicted on the South during the Reconstruction era that followed the military defeat of the Confederacy…”

Some have said you’re a buffoon for saying this. They’ve no clue. The history is after the Civil War anyone who fought for the South was denied the right to vote. This of course was almost everyone but Blacks and people who immigrated from the North to loot what was left of the South’s carcass. Most everything was destroyed. Especially bad was the railroad system which was the only way to get most things to larger markets. Blacks took over the legislature of most all the Southern States and turned the whole South onto what would the same as Detroit today. Taxes were raised to exorbitant levels that few could pay then their property was seized. For you ecologist out there, most all the forest was strip mined to soil which caused huge erosion problems. The KKK was a direct result of this. People could either fight guerilla wars or they could starve to death. There was not much more of a choice.

If Lincoln would have lived I think the outcome of the civil war would have been much better.

Slight quarrel here, my friend; I amended this to "imbecile" in my next post because "buffoon" didn't seem strong enough. His point was that racism ORIGINATED in the south in 1865. I'd say that level of "intellect" speaks for itself.

The history is after the Civil War anyone who fought for the South was denied the right to vote. This of course was almost everyone but Blacks and people who immigrated from the North to loot what was left of the South’s carcass.

This is a ridiculously exaggerated, and decades-lasting canard from your 5th grade civics class; the truth is quite different and not nearly as damning: First of all these were LOCAL and STATEWIDE laws that changed upon crossing county and state lines...

This whole thing started with a bill (if that), initiated by YOUR Republican party during the war which demanded all federal employees take an oath of allegiance to the US (imagine that!) It was vetoed by Lincoln and NEVER BECAME FEDERAL LAW.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironclad_oath

Ironically, the states with the most "white disenfranchisement" were the border states with the strongest pro-union sentiment, and the LEAST BLACKS...

Voting restrictions on former Confederates varied state by state during the rest of the Reconstruction era. Few were disenfranchised in Georgia, Texas, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina. Alabama and Arkansas banned only those ineligible to hold office under the Fourteenth Amendment. Louisiana banned those newspaper editors and religious ministers who had supported secession or anybody who had voted for the secession ordinance, but allowed them to vote if they took an oath favoring Radical Reconstruction, a much more lenient avowal than required by the Ironclad Oath.[14] In states where there was disenfranchisement the maximum percentage was 10-20% of otherwise eligible white voters; most states had much smaller percentages disenfranchised.[15] In the South the most support for the Ironclad Oath came from white Republicans from the hill counties, where they needed it to gain local majorities.[16]

In May 1884, President Chester Arthur signed the law repealing the remaining ironclad and jurors' test-oath statutes.[17]

Even for most of those disenfranchised had their rights restored within 1 and 5 years of the war, so in essence, this was, what everything is in America; an exercise in dick-pulling and parasitic power-grabbing between groups of rich, (southern in this case), white men.

Now, let's say this were true; these men you THOUGHT were wronged, were in essence, traitors to the state. They raised arms against the uniion, and back in the author's continent-of-birth, they would have likely faced a firing squad or a guillotine; by comparison, losing one's voting rights doesn't seem so bad.

After the civil war, the cotton-producing states were in upwards of %50 black. They coalesced behind one candidate, whereas white men dick-pulled against each other, and blacks were elected to congress; one man / one vote. Is this what you are don't like? because if it is, you don't like democracy.

Look at immigration patterns. Why do all these people try to move to white nations? They believe whites run better societies. So, they believe whites are superior.

It's the great paradox. Immigration is premised on the notion that Diversity is GOOD for white nations, but people of diversity flee from diversity to come to live in white nations. But as white nations turn more diverse, they are less desirable as immigration-destinations. If Sweden becomes majority black and Muslim, even blacks and Muslims wouldn't want to go there. What'd be the point? Blacks and Muslims want to emigrate away from blacks and Muslims.

you really need to create a handle and stick with it. I can’t tell if you are the same person or not your posts are very confusing. sometimes you make some actual sense sense with certain parts of your comments, other times you read like a lunatic. it is why I ignore your comments most of the time.

the reason why they want to immigrate to our country is because we are rich.

do you know why we are rich? this is the million dollar question. a hint, not because we are better at running our country.

It’s interesting how ‘anti-racism’ went from an egalitarian ideology to a supremacist ideology.

There was a time when the US was blatantly discriminatory against non-whites. There was Segregation for blacks and a long history of Indians getting the shaft. And even though Jews had it pretty good, they could still get beat up in school by ‘big dumb Polac*s’ and not be admitted to some country club with superior lemonade.

Back then, ‘anti-racism’ was indeed a movement to create a more equal society under the law where everyone, regardless of race/creed/color, would be accorded the same protections and rights.

But ‘anti-racism’ became like Christianity, a religion that got started by calling for justice for the poor but eventually became the Official Faith of kings and noblemen. As long as the elites invoked God and Jesus the Savior, their supreme power was justified over the toiling masses. Christianity became the symbolic justification for monarchic-aristocratic power. The noblemen were not a separate race from their subjects, but since membership was determined by blood, they were a caste, or a class-race, or clace(or rass). Anyway, the noblemen invoked God and Jesus to judge their ‘deplorable’ subjects.

Today, there is equality under the law for everyone in the US.Sure, some people are more equal than others cuz those with more talent and money will always be more privileged. But the law is, more or less, the same for most Americans.So, what is the real value of ‘anti-racism’? Its current function is essentially and paradoxically supremacist. It is used by the GLOB to maintain its supremacist status over the masses, especially the white majority. Given that the GLOB is disproportionately made up of Jews and their gentile collaborators, what it fears most is the assertiveness of the white majority. White majority no longer wants special favors or ‘racial supremacism’ over non-whites. But they do want something like proportional representation, which is sorely missing in the US. It isn’t much of an exaggeration to say that Jews, who are 2%, wield more power and influence than white gentiles who make up a much larger percentage of the population. In order for Jews to control and suppress the aspirations of the whites masses, they need a psychological mechanism, and that is cult of guilt that paralyzes and demoralizes and makes the afflicted hanker for redemption. Indeed, given the cult of White Guilt, white pride can ONLY BE earned by redemption, and that means ‘good whites’ dumping on ‘bad whites’. It’s no wonder that so many whites get their moral jollies by dumping on other whites. Look what happened to country girl Ashley Judd after her mind got worked over in Hollywood. So, ‘anti-racism’ is now a tool of tribal supremacism by the GLOB.

In the end, it’s not just about power. Sure, the Deep State controls levers of power at the deeper level of government, academia, media, industries, and etc. A web of collusion.

But there is also the Deep Agenda and Deep Narrative.On the surface, ‘anti-racism’ seems like what it says it is: A struggle for equality and more just society. And who can really oppose that Narrative?But the Deep Narrative is “Anti-racism is very useful in maintaining our supermacist tribal power.”Deep State is about power, but power must serve something, some group, some ideology. And at the deeper level, there is little room for earnest naivete. It is about the cynical grasp of what power is and what it takes to control it. And for ‘my people’ or the for people who will hand out rewards if you serve them right.

Btw...

While I oppose mass immigration, let’s remember that Muslims are pawns in the game, at least in the US. In EU, they got more weight, and the politics is different there. Some parts of EU have serious Muslim problems.

In the US, it’s totally different.

Muslims in the US have been helpless to do anything about Zionism, the Occupation, the Gulf War, the sanctions on Iraq that killed 100,000s, the sanctions on Iran(though it has no nukes while Israel has 200 and gets 4 billion in aid), the Iraq War, Afghan War, destruction of Libya, the bloody mess in Gaza, and the horror in Syria.

Muslims have no say or power in the Politics of Refugees. They are pawns. The GLOB wages war on MENA and tries to mask its imperialism with ‘humanitarian’ outreach to Muslim refugees.

Even this Image of Arab woman in hijab, Muslims didn’t come up with it. Some shill of Obama who is a shill of the GLOB came up with it. Muslims are being used for symbolic value by both ‘right’ and ‘left’. The ‘right’ that is too chicken to touch issues of Jewish, Homo, and black power have found an easy target in the Mooslims. And the ‘left’ that can’t own up to its globo-imperialism now feign as compassionate defenders of Muslims(over here as it didn’t do anything to defend Muslims over there).Muslims are a nutty people, but they don’t have power in the US. If they did, they would be steering US foreign policy to reflect their interests. Instead, they are helpless to stop the GLOB destruction of Middle East and North Africa and desperately seek refugee status.

Though Muslim terror is horrible stuff and I don’t condone it, I think some of the rage is understandable. See it this way.Suppose the Muslim World is richer and more powerful than Europe. Suppose you’re a European whose nation have been utterly starved, bombed, and wrecked by a Muslim superpower and its vassals. Suppose Jews have colonized Austria and reduced its native population to Palestinian-like status. Suppose the Muslim superpower uses its might to favor Ausreal(Austria-Israel) and suppose superpower uses sanctions and bombs to destroy much of Europe.BUT, to show its ‘humane’ face, the great Muslim superpower invites European refugees to settle in the Muslim world. Suppose you go there cuz things are so bad at home. But when you consider what this superpower did to Europe, would you not be angry? Would you not want to strike out at a nation that did so much damage to your homeland of Europe?

Now, much of the problems in the Muslim world are the fault of Muslims, but much of the recent horrors had to do with US intervention with key influence from Zionists.

I agree with No Invite, but no discussion of Invite makes sense without the bigger crime of Invade.

‘anti-racism’ became like Christianity

That is because anti-racism is Christianity.

♫ Red and yellow,
Black and white,
They are precious,
In (((His))) sight. ♪

Christians worship a globalist International Jew who demanded his tikkun olam be spread to “all nations.” (Matt. 28:19)

more PCR silly posturing as a Good Guy and On the Right Side Of History.

Of course Whites are racialist, even those who claim the reverse. IF you are married to a same-race person, you are a racialist. It is genetic similarity that rules , with a couple exceptions to prove it. All races are racialist. That is why the word Race exists, despite the cry that There is no Race!

Human Nature....and only sophomores and elite scammers claim otherwise...making money means you must luv everybody or say you do. I am not now or have I ever been a racist!

I am a racialist. I once was not...proof: had a couple girlfriends of mixed race.

I was a foolish liberal, instructed by the usual intellectual boobs, family (communist), and The Times, and I enjoyed my high status as a Liberal with a Big Badge. I looked down on the deplorable dopes.

Now that the Truth, after first pissing me off, set me Free. I am delighted to be Free of Bad Ideas. And proud to be White: a privileged member of the White Race, the race that has invented Everything, from free speech to rocketships to the Moon.

Whites Are Privileged...by Nature, the global north, and the best all-round genes that money cannot buy. The inferior races hate us because we are the best. Resentment, envy, greed, jealousy of our personal good looks, our women especially. Too bad but that is just the way it is.

It is not only ideology of Americans being inseparable from ideas of racism. Racism is a means to diminish and dehumanise the exploited, the victims, the prey. Indians deprived of their land and very existence, then black slaves fall prey to the White Men. The Whites in the same time pretend to be Christians, caring for their brother humans. How to solve this riddle? Turn racist, claim they are no brothers, yet pagans/human sacrificers/non-human species, and finally, Untermenschen.

The same applies to the Old World, Western Europe. There would be no Industrial revolution without robbing the Indies. The magnificient architecture of London is built not from the wealth accumulated by exploiting steam power or Jenny's machine, but from graves of millions Indians killed, from slave trade of EIC, and from Opium trade with China. Without spanish gold and silver there would be no Enlightenement. Without usury of Fuggers and Bardis - no Reformation and Renaissance, i.e. no Western heritage as we know it. In that way Hitlerism is not an aberration, but a legacy of Western thinking. They found no other races at hand, and simply claimed their neighbors untermenschen. (Compare with 'love thy neighbor').

It is not high IQ, manoralism, being blonde, heritage of Greek Democracy or Roman Order that makes the people part of the spiritual West. It is still Usury, and institutionalised exploitation, that means living on someone other's expense. To get one Westerner prosper, he has to let some non-westerners be deprived, some starve, and some be killed. There is nothing Aryan or Indoeuropean here, but such things are all written in the Old Testament.

living on someone other’s expense

What animal on earth doesn’t live at the expense of another life form?

All do, some are just better at the game we call life: Gladiator War.

“We’re chemical machines, that have been built over 4 billion years, and we’ve been tested in what can be called quite accurately a ‘Gladiator War’; where the machines went into the battle and if you won your DNA replicated, and that’s all it was was a war. ”

So you define humans as animals, yet not all animals are cannibals and none of them have free will. That's a Nazi talk of the doomed week and meek. In our human culture, the meek are blessed. And you have free will. And reducing the lifespan of another guy by exploitation is very close to cannibalism: you draw/deduce energy (calories) from the human victim to gain calories/their equivalent for yourself.

So, you are free to act like an animal (e.g. cubs-eating 'brave' lion), yet there is no natural force or instinct that makes people do it. Racism and human cannibalism are both acts of free will.

I also believe that races are generally happier when living among themselves.

When I was in the service, I happened to serve with mostly whites. I saw the Marines with lots of Hispanics and blacks, the Army with equal mixed, while the AF is mostly white for some unexplained reason. Also the AF is more tech oriented, while the Marines are mostly ground fighters, and the Army as well. The Navy I don't know much about. Well, we did get along so good, and I enjoyed the company of my best friend from Arkansas, and the several airmen from Ohio, which some how over represents the AF, as well as the deep south. The problem is that in the civilian world people hardly communicate with the believe that we cannot be friends. Of course we can, I saw it in the AF, we were friends with all services while deployed, race was secondary, especially when riding a HUMMER with other three people, one black, other hispanic, and two white. We enjoy each other in the deserts of Arabia, etc. The US population is so focused on race that, its hard to remove that from the daily thinking. I remember chatting over ancestry, and here we go. My parents came from Ireland, and or I am Irish, with German, and 1/4 Indian. or English with french and polak, etc. Some I am Mexican with German, and Italian, Etc. The old tribes of America; Tribal Europe met, and created the American people, with pieces from natives, and Mexicans, who were already in the land when the European tribes(English, Irish, Germans, Polacks, French, etc) arrived.

Today’s all-volunteer military gets to be rather choosy about which blacks enter service; the integrated military does not have to tolerate the average black’s behavior. Even then, you’re glossing over the very real racial tensions within the military, even if they today do not rise to the level of the USMC’s Agana Race Riot.

Jefferson may have been averse to slavery (even though he was a slave owner himself), but he was no believer in racial equality between white Europeans and African Negroes:

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them."

Leftists dismiss sentiment like this as "white supremacy" but it was based on observation and reflection. If Jefferson and the founding fathers were alive to see contemporary America and the problems wrought by racial egalitarianism their racial convictions would probably be even stronger. And they'd probably want to reach for their guns as in 1776.

Thank you! Jefferson was indeed a segregationist. In addition to what you quoted, he also suggested that if we did not ship them back to Africa, we would have a genocidal race war.

“It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the State [instead of colonizing them]? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites, ten thousand recollections by the blacks of the injuries they have sustained, new provocations, the real distinctions which nature has made, and many other circumstances will divide us into parties and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.” -Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Va., 1782

We’ve still got a wolf by the ear, a dangerous situation.

But as it is, we have a wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Holmes, April 22, 1820

At the least, this gives lie to claims in the comment section that Jefferson was (*snort*) “an Alinskyite.”

What animal on earth doesn't live at the expense of another life form?

All do, some are just better at the game we call life: Gladiator War.

"We're chemical machines, that have been built over 4 billion years, and we've been tested in what can be called quite accurately a 'Gladiator War'; where the machines went into the battle and if you won your DNA replicated, and that's all it was was a war. "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK2a-1K0Sdg

So you define humans as animals, yet not all animals are cannibals and none of them have free will. That’s a Nazi talk of the doomed week and meek. In our human culture, the meek are blessed. And you have free will. And reducing the lifespan of another guy by exploitation is very close to cannibalism: you draw/deduce energy (calories) from the human victim to gain calories/their equivalent for yourself.

So, you are free to act like an animal (e.g. cubs-eating ‘brave’ lion), yet there is no natural force or instinct that makes people do it. Racism and human cannibalism are both acts of free will.

And for those who give a rip about what the Bible says, the smartest feller in there in says that you will have (a) no reward more and (b) no advantage over a horse.

(a) Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten...in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.

(b) Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"

Whatever free will a lion has, you have. Whatever reward a crow has, you have. Whatever advantage a whale has, you have. Bible says so. And what morality you have was imparted to your ancestors, in part, from the wolf family.

"The closest approximation to human morality we can find in nature is that of the gray wolf, Canis lupus."

So you define humans as animals, yet not all animals are cannibals and none of them have free will. That's a Nazi talk of the doomed week and meek. In our human culture, the meek are blessed. And you have free will. And reducing the lifespan of another guy by exploitation is very close to cannibalism: you draw/deduce energy (calories) from the human victim to gain calories/their equivalent for yourself.

So, you are free to act like an animal (e.g. cubs-eating 'brave' lion), yet there is no natural force or instinct that makes people do it. Racism and human cannibalism are both acts of free will.

All humans are animals; that’s 5th grade biology. Fact is, we humans are in the Great Ape family.

And for those who give a rip about what the Bible says, the smartest feller in there in says that you will have (a) no reward more and (b) no advantage over a horse.

(a) Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten…in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.

(b) Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

Whatever free will a lion has, you have. Whatever reward a crow has, you have. Whatever advantage a whale has, you have. Bible says so. And what morality you have was imparted to your ancestors, in part, from the wolf family.

“The closest approximation to human morality we can find in nature is that of the gray wolf, Canis lupus.”

Thanks for displaying a Western point of view, which is Post-Christian, and then goes to Anti-Christian. Ecclesiastes relates only to mortality, not free will. Mortality without free will makes an animal, free will with immortality should make a deity. Linnaeus classification is a social construct, not a natural law for a sapiens Homo.

Christian morality is 'I sacrifice my body for you', and that of animal and cannibal 'I sacrifice your body for myself'. Deriving morality from a canine instinct is not a development of science (free will), but rather an archaic relic of totemism. What a demise of Western post-science!

The scriptures you sited are meant for the natural man, the carnal man- just like yourself.

Without the fear of the Lord, man is but vanity; set that aside, and judges will not use their power well. And there is another Judge that stands before the door. With God there is a time for the redressing of grievances, though as yet we see it not. Solomon seems to express his wish that men might perceive, that by choosing this world as their portion, they brought themselves to a level with the beasts, without being free, as they are, from present vexations and a future account. Both return to the dust from whence they were taken. What little reason have we to be proud of our bodies, or bodily accomplishments! But as none can fully comprehend, so few consider properly, the difference between the rational soul of man, and the spirit or life of the beast. The spirit of man goes upward, to be judged, and is then fixed in an unchangeable state of happiness or misery. It is as certain that the spirit of the beast goes downward to the earth; it perishes at death. Surely their case is lamentable, the height of whose hopes and wishes is, that they may die like beasts. Let our inquiry be, how an eternity of existence may be to us an eternity of enjoyment? To answer this, is the grand design of revelation. Jesus is revealed as the Son of God, and the Hope of sinners.

"...Hardly anyone, even southerners, understands that racism in the South originated in the horrors that were inflicted on the South during the Reconstruction era that followed the military defeat of the Confederacy..."

Some have said you're a buffoon for saying this. They've no clue. The history is after the Civil War anyone who fought for the South was denied the right to vote. This of course was almost everyone but Blacks and people who immigrated from the North to loot what was left of the South's carcass. Most everything was destroyed. Especially bad was the railroad system which was the only way to get most things to larger markets. Blacks took over the legislature of most all the Southern States and turned the whole South onto what would the same as Detroit today. Taxes were raised to exorbitant levels that few could pay then their property was seized. For you ecologist out there, most all the forest was strip mined to soil which caused huge erosion problems. The KKK was a direct result of this. People could either fight guerilla wars or they could starve to death. There was not much more of a choice.

If Lincoln would have lived I think the outcome of the civil war would have been much better.

Some have said you’re a buffoon for saying this. They’ve no clue.

Slight quarrel here, my friend; I amended this to “imbecile” in my next post because “buffoon” didn’t seem strong enough. His point was that racism ORIGINATED in the south in 1865. I’d say that level of “intellect” speaks for itself.

The history is after the Civil War anyone who fought for the South was denied the right to vote. This of course was almost everyone but Blacks and people who immigrated from the North to loot what was left of the South’s carcass.

This is a ridiculously exaggerated, and decades-lasting canard from your 5th grade civics class; the truth is quite different and not nearly as damning: First of all these were LOCAL and STATEWIDE laws that changed upon crossing county and state lines…

This whole thing started with a bill (if that), initiated by YOUR Republican party during the war which demanded all federal employees take an oath of allegiance to the US (imagine that!) It was vetoed by Lincoln and NEVER BECAME FEDERAL LAW.

Ironically, the states with the most “white disenfranchisement” were the border states with the strongest pro-union sentiment, and the LEAST BLACKS…

Voting restrictions on former Confederates varied state by state during the rest of the Reconstruction era. Few were disenfranchised in Georgia, Texas, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina. Alabama and Arkansas banned only those ineligible to hold office under the Fourteenth Amendment. Louisiana banned those newspaper editors and religious ministers who had supported secession or anybody who had voted for the secession ordinance, but allowed them to vote if they took an oath favoring Radical Reconstruction, a much more lenient avowal than required by the Ironclad Oath.[14] In states where there was disenfranchisement the maximum percentage was 10-20% of otherwise eligible white voters; most states had much smaller percentages disenfranchised.[15] In the South the most support for the Ironclad Oath came from white Republicans from the hill counties, where they needed it to gain local majorities.[16]

In May 1884, President Chester Arthur signed the law repealing the remaining ironclad and jurors’ test-oath statutes.[17]

Even for most of those disenfranchised had their rights restored within 1 and 5 years of the war, so in essence, this was, what everything is in America; an exercise in dick-pulling and parasitic power-grabbing between groups of rich, (southern in this case), white men.

Now, let’s say this were true; these men you THOUGHT were wronged, were in essence, traitors to the state. They raised arms against the uniion, and back in the author’s continent-of-birth, they would have likely faced a firing squad or a guillotine; by comparison, losing one’s voting rights doesn’t seem so bad.

After the civil war, the cotton-producing states were in upwards of %50 black. They coalesced behind one candidate, whereas white men dick-pulled against each other, and blacks were elected to congress; one man / one vote. Is this what you are don’t like? because if it is, you don’t like democracy.

And for those who give a rip about what the Bible says, the smartest feller in there in says that you will have (a) no reward more and (b) no advantage over a horse.

(a) Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten...in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.

(b) Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"

Whatever free will a lion has, you have. Whatever reward a crow has, you have. Whatever advantage a whale has, you have. Bible says so. And what morality you have was imparted to your ancestors, in part, from the wolf family.

"The closest approximation to human morality we can find in nature is that of the gray wolf, Canis lupus."

P.S. Careful bringing up cannibalism, it might offend descendants of the Donner party or those of a certain Jewish cult. "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you." ;)

Thanks for displaying a Western point of view, which is Post-Christian, and then goes to Anti-Christian. Ecclesiastes relates only to mortality, not free will. Mortality without free will makes an animal, free will with immortality should make a deity. Linnaeus classification is a social construct, not a natural law for a sapiens Homo.

Christian morality is ‘I sacrifice my body for you’, and that of animal and cannibal ‘I sacrifice your body for myself’. Deriving morality from a canine instinct is not a development of science (free will), but rather an archaic relic of totemism. What a demise of Western post-science!

Dropped the cannibalism swipe like a hot potato, didn't you? Back to the topic of racism, anti-Christian is pro-White.

"Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity—the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored, against 'race:' the undying chandala hatred is disguised as a religion of love."

So, race-ism should mean rational race-ism. Stuff like Nazism should be called Radical Racism.

But almost everyone, even on the Right, use 'racism' to mean 'radical racism'.

Because 'racism' is used that way, there is no word for a factual, rational, and sensible belief in race and racial differences.

That is why the meaning of race-ism must be changed if we are to have an honest debate.

You know why. Because it’s convenient to lump normal, everyday, rational racism in with gas-chamber racism. Then you don’t have to bother arguing with the former if you don’t feel like it, and people whose arguments rely on pretending humans are interchangeable don’t often feel like it.

Thanks for displaying a Western point of view, which is Post-Christian, and then goes to Anti-Christian. Ecclesiastes relates only to mortality, not free will. Mortality without free will makes an animal, free will with immortality should make a deity. Linnaeus classification is a social construct, not a natural law for a sapiens Homo.

Christian morality is 'I sacrifice my body for you', and that of animal and cannibal 'I sacrifice your body for myself'. Deriving morality from a canine instinct is not a development of science (free will), but rather an archaic relic of totemism. What a demise of Western post-science!

Dropped the cannibalism swipe like a hot potato, didn’t you? Back to the topic of racism, anti-Christian is pro-White.

“Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity—the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored, against ‘race:’ the undying chandala hatred is disguised as a religion of love.”

Anti-Christian is not pro-White. It is inhumane, thus anti-whatever color and anti-White. Racism is self-destructive and racists are doomed, like madman Nietzsche. Hopefully for humanity, there exist an eternal, universal remedy for any past and future racists and nietzshhians, The Russian Bayonet. It makes any wannabe Übermensch feel the opposite way.

Slight quarrel here, my friend; I amended this to "imbecile" in my next post because "buffoon" didn't seem strong enough. His point was that racism ORIGINATED in the south in 1865. I'd say that level of "intellect" speaks for itself.

The history is after the Civil War anyone who fought for the South was denied the right to vote. This of course was almost everyone but Blacks and people who immigrated from the North to loot what was left of the South’s carcass.

This is a ridiculously exaggerated, and decades-lasting canard from your 5th grade civics class; the truth is quite different and not nearly as damning: First of all these were LOCAL and STATEWIDE laws that changed upon crossing county and state lines...

This whole thing started with a bill (if that), initiated by YOUR Republican party during the war which demanded all federal employees take an oath of allegiance to the US (imagine that!) It was vetoed by Lincoln and NEVER BECAME FEDERAL LAW.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironclad_oath

Ironically, the states with the most "white disenfranchisement" were the border states with the strongest pro-union sentiment, and the LEAST BLACKS...

Voting restrictions on former Confederates varied state by state during the rest of the Reconstruction era. Few were disenfranchised in Georgia, Texas, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina. Alabama and Arkansas banned only those ineligible to hold office under the Fourteenth Amendment. Louisiana banned those newspaper editors and religious ministers who had supported secession or anybody who had voted for the secession ordinance, but allowed them to vote if they took an oath favoring Radical Reconstruction, a much more lenient avowal than required by the Ironclad Oath.[14] In states where there was disenfranchisement the maximum percentage was 10-20% of otherwise eligible white voters; most states had much smaller percentages disenfranchised.[15] In the South the most support for the Ironclad Oath came from white Republicans from the hill counties, where they needed it to gain local majorities.[16]

In May 1884, President Chester Arthur signed the law repealing the remaining ironclad and jurors' test-oath statutes.[17]

Even for most of those disenfranchised had their rights restored within 1 and 5 years of the war, so in essence, this was, what everything is in America; an exercise in dick-pulling and parasitic power-grabbing between groups of rich, (southern in this case), white men.

Now, let's say this were true; these men you THOUGHT were wronged, were in essence, traitors to the state. They raised arms against the uniion, and back in the author's continent-of-birth, they would have likely faced a firing squad or a guillotine; by comparison, losing one's voting rights doesn't seem so bad.

After the civil war, the cotton-producing states were in upwards of %50 black. They coalesced behind one candidate, whereas white men dick-pulled against each other, and blacks were elected to congress; one man / one vote. Is this what you are don't like? because if it is, you don't like democracy.

The "Ironclad Oath" wanted all

As far as self-sacrifice goes, even dying for a friend, it was taught by Epicurus, centuries before Jesus ever lived.

“…an Epicurean sage will on occasion will even perform what may be termed the ultimate act of self-sacrifice; he will die for a friend.”

Dropped the cannibalism swipe like a hot potato, didn't you? Back to the topic of racism, anti-Christian is pro-White.

"Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity—the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored, against 'race:' the undying chandala hatred is disguised as a religion of love."

-Friedrich Nietzsche (Twilight of the Idols, Chap. 6)

Anti-Christian is not pro-White. It is inhumane, thus anti-whatever color and anti-White. Racism is self-destructive and racists are doomed, like madman Nietzsche. Hopefully for humanity, there exist an eternal, universal remedy for any past and future racists and nietzshhians, The Russian Bayonet. It makes any wannabe Übermensch feel the opposite way.

I also believe that races are generally happier when living among themselves.

When I was in the service, I happened to serve with mostly whites. I saw the Marines with lots of Hispanics and blacks, the Army with equal mixed, while the AF is mostly white for some unexplained reason. Also the AF is more tech oriented, while the Marines are mostly ground fighters, and the Army as well. The Navy I don't know much about. Well, we did get along so good, and I enjoyed the company of my best friend from Arkansas, and the several airmen from Ohio, which some how over represents the AF, as well as the deep south. The problem is that in the civilian world people hardly communicate with the believe that we cannot be friends. Of course we can, I saw it in the AF, we were friends with all services while deployed, race was secondary, especially when riding a HUMMER with other three people, one black, other hispanic, and two white. We enjoy each other in the deserts of Arabia, etc. The US population is so focused on race that, its hard to remove that from the daily thinking. I remember chatting over ancestry, and here we go. My parents came from Ireland, and or I am Irish, with German, and 1/4 Indian. or English with french and polak, etc. Some I am Mexican with German, and Italian, Etc. The old tribes of America; Tribal Europe met, and created the American people, with pieces from natives, and Mexicans, who were already in the land when the European tribes(English, Irish, Germans, Polacks, French, etc) arrived.

The IQ level required are in descending order USAF, USN, Army, Marines. HBD types will argue that there is your racial composition explanation.

Anti-Christian is not pro-White. It is inhumane, thus anti-whatever color and anti-White. Racism is self-destructive and racists are doomed, like madman Nietzsche. Hopefully for humanity, there exist an eternal, universal remedy for any past and future racists and nietzshhians, The Russian Bayonet. It makes any wannabe Übermensch feel the opposite way.

If racism is doomed, how badly do you wish to see the Chosen Ones—including racist Jesus—suffer, goyim?

“…the Holy One, blessed be He, will exterminate all the Goyim of the world, Israel alone will subsist…” -Choschen Hamm 388, 15

Rabbi Jesus, echoing the institutionalized racism of Judaism, called a woman outside of his race bitch—what else is a female dog?—in the New Testament.

“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel…It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to da bitches.” Matthew 15:21-28

And as far as madmen go, you worship one, if the alleged “eye-witness accounts” from Jesus’ own family are correct.

“Jesus went back home and a large crowd was gathering. When his family heard what he was up to, they hoped to take custody of Jesus because they thought he was insane.” Mark 3.20-21

If we abstain from Christian point of view, we can not understand and explain these facts. If we keep Christian viewpoint of history, we understand the 'chosen' making ground for their man of doom, and all their banksters tricks shaping modern society. Otherwise we should switch to your system. Exclude God - and reduce the history down to warring races and then down to 'we do like animals'. Yet our culture was formed 'under Christian conditions' - how can we exclude God from the equations that describe ourselves?

If racism is doomed, how badly do you wish to see the Chosen Ones—including racist Jesus—suffer, goyim?

"...the Holy One, blessed be He, will exterminate all the Goyim of the world, Israel alone will subsist..." -Choschen Hamm 388, 15

Rabbi Jesus, echoing the institutionalized racism of Judaism, called a woman outside of his race bitch—what else is a female dog?—in the New Testament.

“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel...It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to da bitches.” Matthew 15:21-28

And as far as madmen go, you worship one, if the alleged "eye-witness accounts" from Jesus' own family are correct.

"Jesus went back home and a large crowd was gathering. When his family heard what he was up to, they hoped to take custody of Jesus because they thought he was insane." Mark 3.20-21

Lesson: glass house, stones, and all that.

If we abstain from Christian point of view, we can not understand and explain these facts. If we keep Christian viewpoint of history, we understand the ‘chosen’ making ground for their man of doom, and all their banksters tricks shaping modern society. Otherwise we should switch to your system. Exclude God – and reduce the history down to warring races and then down to ‘we do like animals’. Yet our culture was formed ‘under Christian conditions’ – how can we exclude God from the equations that describe ourselves?

Wrong; my belief system does not "exclude God." I believe in GNON, more commonly known as "The Laws of Nature, and Nature's God" found in the US Declaration of Independence, which traces back through Jefferson and Locke to Spinoza's "Deus, sive Natura" to Lucretius' De rerum natura and to Epicurus' atomism and understanding of the gods. Of course, from Epicurus, through Locke and Jefferson, we also have our concept of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Give 'er another try there, pal. (Maybe after you read some rather common history of which you seem rather unfamiliar. )

If we abstain from Christian point of view, we can not understand and explain these facts. If we keep Christian viewpoint of history, we understand the 'chosen' making ground for their man of doom, and all their banksters tricks shaping modern society. Otherwise we should switch to your system. Exclude God - and reduce the history down to warring races and then down to 'we do like animals'. Yet our culture was formed 'under Christian conditions' - how can we exclude God from the equations that describe ourselves?

Wrong; my belief system does not “exclude God.” I believe in GNON, more commonly known as “The Laws of Nature, and Nature’s God” found in the US Declaration of Independence, which traces back through Jefferson and Locke to Spinoza’s “Deus, sive Natura” to Lucretius’ De rerum natura and to Epicurus’ atomism and understanding of the gods. Of course, from Epicurus, through Locke and Jefferson, we also have our concept of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Give ‘er another try there, pal. (Maybe after you read some rather common history of which you seem rather unfamiliar. )

I doubt you read any of these authors, although 'the declaration' is a plain masonic nonsense. 'We the people' were just a bunch of immigrants, displaced religious sectarians moved by then-plotting Soros-like entity (e.g. some Venetian merchant-bankster). They, often dirty and poor, and illiterate enough to believe in witchcraft, only moved not to Europe, but from Europe, from then-existing mess. And all their 'bills', 'charters', and 'declarations' were mere propaganda, devised by some evil force to install an anti-Christian, anti-European power overseas, to overcome Christian civilization. It is not a noble heritage, but abomination unrelated to Greek and Roman philosophers. It is just ridiculous to see Americans treating such stupid texts like sacred writings.

Your arrogance is pathetic, since most Western 'history' is a long list of shameful events describing life of post-Roman barbarians, descending back to paganism. Most probably, Western 'history books' try to glorify this past. You display that well too, yet 'back to a dog' morality is not a development from cynism of the Greeks. It is like blue-painted British barbarian jumping with dog's totem around the pyre or May pole.

I'm the only true race-ist. Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean belief in the existence of races and racial differences.

Racist? YOU BETCHA….. Western civilization is at stake. The mean IQ in the west is plummeting while we dither over genetics vs environment.

The human genome project is closer and closer to the unhappy truth. All those vaccines and penicillin to Africa and Asia… did nothing but improve the chances that Western Civilization will be swamped by the least of us. Thank you Christians. I personally am out of cheeks to proffer.

Environmental factors can destroy a child. Environment cannot raise their IQ but for a pittance. AND the saddest, and most disturbing evidence is that those blacks and browns who escape the mean… see their progeny revert to the mean in their lifetimes.

And we insured their fertility rates would surpass our own. Let’s here it for Catholic Charities.!!

Look at immigration patterns. Why do all these people try to move to white nations? They believe whites run better societies. So, they believe whites are superior.

It's the great paradox. Immigration is premised on the notion that Diversity is GOOD for white nations, but people of diversity flee from diversity to come to live in white nations. But as white nations turn more diverse, they are less desirable as immigration-destinations. If Sweden becomes majority black and Muslim, even blacks and Muslims wouldn't want to go there. What'd be the point? Blacks and Muslims want to emigrate away from blacks and Muslims.

I couldn’t have said it better. Doctors Without Borders… talk to one after a couple glasses of win and a joint…. they will tell you the truth of what they’ve done to destroy civilization.

Penicillin and vaccines destroyed Africa for all but Africans.

SAVE THE CHILDREN? Not on your life. My interests are aligned with those of a giraffe. Masai babies? … let em perish, before they grow up and make more little Masai.

Anybody been to Java lately? … save the surrounding seas and blow the place up. Ditto for Ghana, Goa and Bangladesh.

Therefore, I suppose that I’m something a super racists because I believe:

1. There are races2. The various races have different average abilities3. Those averages matter

4. The various races have different cultural preferences and lifestyle norms.

And you, like I, are racist for noting that being smart is better than being stupid, having a low time preference is better than having a high time preference, raising kids with self-control is better than raising them without self-control and that in all likelihood we share a preference for living among people who LIKE TO LIVE THE SAME WAY WE DO.

I don't like loud music after 9 PM. I don't like raucous parties on weekends. I do like to keep my property neat and don't appreciate those who let their homes visibly degrade.

Why on EARTH would someone think I should be forced to live with those who do the opposite of what I prefer, and then heap insults and humiliation on me for objecting to their coercion?

Under our current culture, you are a racist if you even acknowledge that different races do exist on a biological level. Even though this is absurdly true (23andme, anyone), this simple acknowledgement is enough to get you fired.

Therefore, I suppose that I'm something a super racists because I believe:

1. There are races
2. The various races have different average abilities
3. Those averages matter

Of course, my beliefs would be consider quite banal for 99% of history, but today are quite shocking and evil.

Oh, I almost forgot, I also believe that races are generally happier when living among themselves. Naturally, this belief is just one step from gas chambers, right.

Gas chambers are wholly inadequate. The economic music is slowing and there are not 7 billion chairs.

My interests are more aligned with a giraffe than an African.

SAVE THE CHILDREN? not on your life. Doctors Without Borders did more to destroy Western Civilization than nuclear bombs will ever do.

Vaccines + Penicillin + Low IQ populations = high fertility rates for all the wrong people. YES, you heard right. We have utterly destroyed the future of the planet for every bird and butterfly.

I had hopes for bird flu, swine flu and Ebola… but Zika may just be the ticket.

Save the recriminations…. it is kill or be killed time and not just for Tigers.

more PCR silly posturing as a Good Guy and On the Right Side Of History.

Of course Whites are racialist, even those who claim the reverse. IF you are married to a same-race person, you are a racialist. It is genetic similarity that rules , with a couple exceptions to prove it. All races are racialist. That is why the word Race exists, despite the cry that There is no Race!

Human Nature....and only sophomores and elite scammers claim otherwise...making money means you must luv everybody or say you do. I am not now or have I ever been a racist!

I am a racialist. I once was not...proof: had a couple girlfriends of mixed race.

I was a foolish liberal, instructed by the usual intellectual boobs, family (communist), and The Times, and I enjoyed my high status as a Liberal with a Big Badge. I looked down on the deplorable dopes.

Now that the Truth, after first pissing me off, set me Free. I am delighted to be Free of Bad Ideas. And proud to be White: a privileged member of the White Race, the race that has invented Everything, from free speech to rocketships to the Moon.

Whites Are Privileged...by Nature, the global north, and the best all-round genes that money cannot buy. The inferior races hate us because we are the best. Resentment, envy, greed, jealousy of our personal good looks, our women especially. Too bad but that is just the way it is.

Joe Webb time to start telling the truth about race.

the word you are looking for is HAMILTON’S RULE…. We identify with and care for those who look and act like we do.

10000 years of hard wiring cannot be erased with enforced busing or affirmative action.

All that does is exacerbate the ill will between unlike species. Blacks find themselves in over their heads… and resent the standards for performance. Whites don’t trust the skills of those who are advanced for reasons other than merit.

I, for one, would not allow Ben Carson to touch my head. I’ve heard him speak. He may have a higher IQ than street corner blacks… but he’s scary to listen to.

What animal on earth doesn't live at the expense of another life form?

All do, some are just better at the game we call life: Gladiator War.

"We're chemical machines, that have been built over 4 billion years, and we've been tested in what can be called quite accurately a 'Gladiator War'; where the machines went into the battle and if you won your DNA replicated, and that's all it was was a war. "

Wrong; my belief system does not "exclude God." I believe in GNON, more commonly known as "The Laws of Nature, and Nature's God" found in the US Declaration of Independence, which traces back through Jefferson and Locke to Spinoza's "Deus, sive Natura" to Lucretius' De rerum natura and to Epicurus' atomism and understanding of the gods. Of course, from Epicurus, through Locke and Jefferson, we also have our concept of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Give 'er another try there, pal. (Maybe after you read some rather common history of which you seem rather unfamiliar. )

I doubt you read any of these authors, although ‘the declaration’ is a plain masonic nonsense. ‘We the people’ were just a bunch of immigrants, displaced religious sectarians moved by then-plotting Soros-like entity (e.g. some Venetian merchant-bankster). They, often dirty and poor, and illiterate enough to believe in witchcraft, only moved not to Europe, but from Europe, from then-existing mess. And all their ‘bills’, ‘charters’, and ‘declarations’ were mere propaganda, devised by some evil force to install an anti-Christian, anti-European power overseas, to overcome Christian civilization. It is not a noble heritage, but abomination unrelated to Greek and Roman philosophers. It is just ridiculous to see Americans treating such stupid texts like sacred writings.

Your arrogance is pathetic, since most Western ‘history’ is a long list of shameful events describing life of post-Roman barbarians, descending back to paganism. Most probably, Western ‘history books’ try to glorify this past. You display that well too, yet ‘back to a dog’ morality is not a development from cynism of the Greeks. It is like blue-painted British barbarian jumping with dog’s totem around the pyre or May pole.

The author of the Declaration was not a Mason, and wrote against fraternal societies.

Thomas Jefferson's connections to fraternal organizations have often been misunderstood. He is frequently, yet falsely, linked to the Freemasons. Comments that he made in his correspondence suggest that he had a generally negative opinion of fraternal organizations.

I doubt you read any of these authors, although 'the declaration' is a plain masonic nonsense. 'We the people' were just a bunch of immigrants, displaced religious sectarians moved by then-plotting Soros-like entity (e.g. some Venetian merchant-bankster). They, often dirty and poor, and illiterate enough to believe in witchcraft, only moved not to Europe, but from Europe, from then-existing mess. And all their 'bills', 'charters', and 'declarations' were mere propaganda, devised by some evil force to install an anti-Christian, anti-European power overseas, to overcome Christian civilization. It is not a noble heritage, but abomination unrelated to Greek and Roman philosophers. It is just ridiculous to see Americans treating such stupid texts like sacred writings.

Your arrogance is pathetic, since most Western 'history' is a long list of shameful events describing life of post-Roman barbarians, descending back to paganism. Most probably, Western 'history books' try to glorify this past. You display that well too, yet 'back to a dog' morality is not a development from cynism of the Greeks. It is like blue-painted British barbarian jumping with dog's totem around the pyre or May pole.

The author of the Declaration was not a Mason, and wrote against fraternal societies.

Thomas Jefferson’s connections to fraternal organizations have often been misunderstood. He is frequently, yet falsely, linked to the Freemasons. Comments that he made in his correspondence suggest that he had a generally negative opinion of fraternal organizations.

What author? If you take the Cherry tree myth for The Great Truth That Washington Told About The Hatchet, than you should believe a colonial country gentleman would compose a historical manuscipt, just in a couple of days.

The author of the Declaration was not a Mason, and wrote against fraternal societies.

Thomas Jefferson's connections to fraternal organizations have often been misunderstood. He is frequently, yet falsely, linked to the Freemasons. Comments that he made in his correspondence suggest that he had a generally negative opinion of fraternal organizations.

You've proffered a falsehood; thus, I'm not reading past the first sentence of your tripe with your screwing up that badly from the get-go.

What author? If you take the Cherry tree myth for The Great Truth That Washington Told About The Hatchet, than you should believe a colonial country gentleman would compose a historical manuscipt, just in a couple of days.

The Left has not abandoned socialism, they just decided the fascist brand of socialism works better for them and Roberts refuses to admit it. As I wrote in his last post, Leftists have never been about the working class except to use them as a path to power, just like Lincoln used black slaves to try an justify his illegal and unconstitutional war against the South, and Constantine used the Christians.

And for those who give a rip about what the Bible says, the smartest feller in there in says that you will have (a) no reward more and (b) no advantage over a horse.

(a) Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten...in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.

(b) Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"

Whatever free will a lion has, you have. Whatever reward a crow has, you have. Whatever advantage a whale has, you have. Bible says so. And what morality you have was imparted to your ancestors, in part, from the wolf family.

"The closest approximation to human morality we can find in nature is that of the gray wolf, Canis lupus."

P.S. Careful bringing up cannibalism, it might offend descendants of the Donner party or those of a certain Jewish cult. "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you." ;)

@ Dumb as a Post:

The scriptures you sited are meant for the natural man, the carnal man- just like yourself.

Without the fear of the Lord, man is but vanity; set that aside, and judges will not use their power well. And there is another Judge that stands before the door. With God there is a time for the redressing of grievances, though as yet we see it not. Solomon seems to express his wish that men might perceive, that by choosing this world as their portion, they brought themselves to a level with the beasts, without being free, as they are, from present vexations and a future account. Both return to the dust from whence they were taken. What little reason have we to be proud of our bodies, or bodily accomplishments! But as none can fully comprehend, so few consider properly, the difference between the rational soul of man, and the spirit or life of the beast. The spirit of man goes upward, to be judged, and is then fixed in an unchangeable state of happiness or misery. It is as certain that the spirit of the beast goes downward to the earth; it perishes at death. Surely their case is lamentable, the height of whose hopes and wishes is, that they may die like beasts. Let our inquiry be, how an eternity of existence may be to us an eternity of enjoyment? To answer this, is the grand design of revelation. Jesus is revealed as the Son of God, and the Hope of sinners.

From John Derbyshire, http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/raceiq.html

[] As Jane Austen observed, "One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other." Same with interests. Here is a snippet from the Letters column of my favorite papo-paleo-con magazine, Chronicles:

The Catholic Church teaches that, by and through the hypostatic union, Christ's soul possessed immediate knowledge of God from the very moment of His conception; and that, from this, He could not possess the theological virtues of faith and hope. In his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott explains, "Christ as the Originator and Completer of Faith (Hebr. 12, 2), could not Himself walk in the darkness of faith. The perfection of the self-consciousness of the man Jesus can be explained only on the understanding that He possessed immediate knowledge of the Godhead with which He was united." In other words, our Lord Jesus Christ knew he was the Son of God.

Got that? I quoted that because it is as far from being of interest to me as anything I have encountered in, oh, at least ten years: farther than the text of the 300-page booklet my life insurance company sends me every year to explain their policies; farther than that report from the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development that I found waiting for me at the NR office one morning; farther than the collected speeches of Kim Il Sung. Yet it's of interest to — is absolutely fascinating to — a lot of people. I know some of them. I bet the letter writer (Jerry C. Meng of Imlay City, Mich. — Hi there, Jerry!) thinks about that stuff for hours at a time. I bet he could give you an impromptu lecture on it. I bet he knows the difference between homousion and homoiousion. (Please do not email in to tell me! I don't want to know! For pity's sake, please!) That's his interest, that's his pleasure. Jolly good luck to him.

Science is just as far away from most people's interest as hypostatic union and Dr. Ludwig Ott's lucubrations are from mine. And that's fine. It's a free country. Chacun à son goût. []

The scriptures you sited are meant for the natural man, the carnal man- just like yourself.

Without the fear of the Lord, man is but vanity; set that aside, and judges will not use their power well. And there is another Judge that stands before the door. With God there is a time for the redressing of grievances, though as yet we see it not. Solomon seems to express his wish that men might perceive, that by choosing this world as their portion, they brought themselves to a level with the beasts, without being free, as they are, from present vexations and a future account. Both return to the dust from whence they were taken. What little reason have we to be proud of our bodies, or bodily accomplishments! But as none can fully comprehend, so few consider properly, the difference between the rational soul of man, and the spirit or life of the beast. The spirit of man goes upward, to be judged, and is then fixed in an unchangeable state of happiness or misery. It is as certain that the spirit of the beast goes downward to the earth; it perishes at death. Surely their case is lamentable, the height of whose hopes and wishes is, that they may die like beasts. Let our inquiry be, how an eternity of existence may be to us an eternity of enjoyment? To answer this, is the grand design of revelation. Jesus is revealed as the Son of God, and the Hope of sinners.

[] As Jane Austen observed, “One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other.” Same with interests. Here is a snippet from the Letters column of my favorite papo-paleo-con magazine, Chronicles:

The Catholic Church teaches that, by and through the hypostatic union, Christ’s soul possessed immediate knowledge of God from the very moment of His conception; and that, from this, He could not possess the theological virtues of faith and hope. In his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott explains, “Christ as the Originator and Completer of Faith (Hebr. 12, 2), could not Himself walk in the darkness of faith. The perfection of the self-consciousness of the man Jesus can be explained only on the understanding that He possessed immediate knowledge of the Godhead with which He was united.” In other words, our Lord Jesus Christ knew he was the Son of God.

Got that? I quoted that because it is as far from being of interest to me as anything I have encountered in, oh, at least ten years: farther than the text of the 300-page booklet my life insurance company sends me every year to explain their policies; farther than that report from the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development that I found waiting for me at the NR office one morning; farther than the collected speeches of Kim Il Sung. Yet it’s of interest to — is absolutely fascinating to — a lot of people. I know some of them. I bet the letter writer (Jerry C. Meng of Imlay City, Mich. — Hi there, Jerry!) thinks about that stuff for hours at a time. I bet he could give you an impromptu lecture on it. I bet he knows the difference between homousion and homoiousion. (Please do not email in to tell me! I don’t want to know! For pity’s sake, please!) That’s his interest, that’s his pleasure. Jolly good luck to him.

Science is just as far away from most people’s interest as hypostatic union and Dr. Ludwig Ott’s lucubrations are from mine. And that’s fine. It’s a free country. Chacun à son goût. []

If 100 years ago someone had seriously argued that the races were equal in intelligence and culture they would have been regarded as a lunatic.

It is manifestly evident to anyone who can discern reality unbiased by the incessant propaganda that comes from US academia and media that the races are not equal. This is too obvious to argue. So, how did the absurd idea that ‘race is a social contruct’ to put an Orwellian twist on come to dominate expressed opinion in the US.

It was a long process brought on by equal participation of academia media that took place during the 20th century, and it is described in this excellent video…

Trying to defend oneself against the charge of racism is like trying to remain dry while taking a shower, it can’t be done. You will be playing the cultural Marxist’s game, you cannot win.